Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
Because future adversaries are likely to look for alternative means to challenging the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in the air to counter U.S. airpower, a recent RAND study for the USAF investigated those means. As part of that study, this historical effort sought to better understand past, present, and future ground threats to air bases. In the course of the research, it became clear that attacks on air bases were much more frequent and successful than is commonly appreciated. For this reason, the history of these attacks is pertinent to future USAF operations. This report presents a comprehensive overview of ground attacks on air bases from the first known attacks in 1940 to the most recent in 1992. The objectives, tactics, and outcomes of those attacks are analyzed to identify lessons learned and their applications to future conflicts. In particular, this report identifies the attack techniques that proved most difficult to counter and offers some suggestions for improving air base defenses against them. The five primary conclusions of this study are as follows: The most common air base attack objective was to destroy aircraft; seventy-five percent of the 645 attacks used standoff weapons; standoff attacks have proved extremely difficult to counter; reliance on non-air force services for air base defense proved problematic for Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) on Crete, the German Luftwaffe in North Africa, and the USAF in Vietnam; small forces using unsophisticated weapons have successfully destroyed or damaged over 2,000 aircraft.
Air bases --- Infantry drill and tactics. --- Air bases --- Case studies. --- Security measures.
Choose an application
In air-to-air combat, the unseen opponent is the greatest threat. An enemy pilot who slips onto your tail, your "six o'clock," is the one who is most likely to shoot you down. The classic fighter dictum, "keep checking six," may be as applicable on the ramp and on the runways as it is at 20,000 feet. This report explores the possibility that future adversaries will use ground attacks on U.S. Air Force (USAF) bases as at least a partial countermeasure to overwhelming U.S. air superiority. It also identifies, in broad terms, the types of initiatives that have the most potential to counter this evolving threat. The means, motives, and opportunity for ground attacks are converging to create a worsening ground threat to USAF air bases. Base vulnerability will be exacerbated by the kinds of expeditionary operations that are likely to be the most common military action in the future. Standoff attacks from perhaps several miles outside the base's perimeter pose the greatest danger, a danger that is amplified by the ongoing diffusion of affordable-yet-sophisticated weapon technologies and military gear. Surveillance and detection of enemy attack teams well outside the base perimeter will be key to protecting the base, its assets, and its personnel. The authors suggest that increasing the capabilities of the Security Police (SP) against the standoff threat will require some changes in USAF training policies and utilization of passive measures (e.g., deception, camouflage, and hardening) to protect key USAF assets. Finally, whereas defense of air bases against ground attack has been traditionally viewed within the USAF as an SP problem, the authors judge that it should be more properly seen as a challenge to airpower itself, since without secure bases, USAF operations could be severely impeded
Air bases --- Security measures --- United States. --- Security measures.
Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|