HomeNewsCommentariesDisplay

Learning ICBM roots through airpower history

MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. --

A few years ago while attending a military education course at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, one of my classes was being led by a civilian instructor who was a previous attorney.

 

He was teaching us about the history of airpower and did so by guiding the class through a case-like explanation of airpower and how it shaped strategic bombing from its early roots into modern day.

 

The timeline started with the 20th century theorists Gen. Giulio Douhet, Italian general, and Brig. Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell, United States Army Air Service, and the instructor explained how these leaders’ early ideas influenced today’s airpower capabilities.

 

Our instructor described how each of the men laid the groundwork for strategies and means that could be utilized to pass over enemy lines and reach deep inside enemy territory to deploy massive and devastating firepower.

 

With further development and diversification of its bomber force, the U.S. Air Force sought to develop a mix of bomber assets to execute these strategies.

 

By the end of the lecture, I realized that during most of my missile operations career I had not really connected the origin of intercontinental ballistic missile operations to the history of airpower and more particularly, strategic bombing.

 

Up to this point in my missile operations career, the majority of ICBM history I knew was about rocket development and its impact on developing space technologies.

 

Being back in the classroom I had added a layer to my understanding of airpower – as the lecturer emphasized, early strategic bombing strategies used in World War II were the catalyst for battle success: the U.S. Air Force developed deterrence through an airpower force structure based on overwhelming, far-reaching and robust strategic bombing capability.

 

Using ICBMs is a major part of the force structure. Understanding this led to many hours of nerding-out at the library for more knowledge of ICBM history.

 

Being at Maxwell AFB at the time, I had generous access to Air Force historical information. I began to research, and the more digging I did, the more I understood how the ICBM as a bombing platform added to the combination of combat-ready Air Force power.

 

Integration into bomber force structure with ICBMs became the future

Gen. Thomas D. White, a former Air Force chief of staff, was known to have said the “Air Force is dedicated to creating for our country the best airpower it is possible to produce.”

 

This statement is reflected in the vision that guided military and engineering leaders as they designed the weapon delivering capabilities of the ICBM. White later described how the evolving Air Force airpower assets supported the integration of the ICBM to complete superior Air Force bombing and deterrence strength.

 

ICBMs were purposefully developed over time as a bombing platform to partner with and support the existing bomber aircraft force.

 

My study of the leaders who shaped this partnership helped me understand why this close relationship was able to be achieved.

 

Maj. Gen. Ben Funk said in 1958, “With the guided missile, the man has been pulled out of the plane and his cockpit is on the ground.”

 

I don't believe the general's intent was to indicate missile and aircraft crews were to accomplish the same tasks, rather, Funk was stating how he applied his knowledge as a bomber aviator with combat experience to shape the ICBM weapon system.

 

So as the ICBM weapon systems expanded congruently with the bomber aircraft, the manned and unmanned bomb delivery systems were separate, but the future showed they would no longer be mutually exclusive.

 

Merging the new bomber system

ICBM operations quickly grew from its airpower roots and provided a lethal strategic bombing capability as envisioned by airpower thinkers.

 

Additionally, ICBM operations development in concordance with manned bomber aircraft operations showed there was a complementary nature to manned bombers and ICBM crews.

 

Aircrew wings intermixed with an ICBM badge emerged as a Strategic Air Command symbol, which portrayed the connection between the manned and unmanned bomber operations. ICBM crews under SAC also received the designation of combat crew, the same as bomber aircrews.

 

The ICBM fleet began to expand its capabilities and numbers, ultimately replacing some bomber aircraft platforms.

 

This rapid growth caused concern at one point among air crews regarding their future and some manned bomber crew members sought to move to the new unmanned bomber system.  

 

Interestingly enough, in 1964, Gen. Thomas Sarsfield Power, commander in chief of SAC at the time, felt inspired to write an article in SAC’s monthly publication, Combat Crew, reassuring bomber crews that there was job security as a rated officer and missiles were not going to replace the bomber aircraft fleet.

 

“Despite the increasing emphasis on missiles, the days of the manned aircraft are by no means numbered as some of the ‘prophets of doom’ are wont to claim,” wrote Power, who was reassuring rated combat crewmembers their capabilities would not have a reduced role in strategic bombing and deterrence.

 

In this article, Power also highlighted the importance of both manned and unmanned bombers. To support his point, Power used a picture in the article of a B-52 flying over a raised Atlas missile to indicate the importance of an Air Force strategic bombing force structure of aircraft and missile platforms.

 

Power stressed that "SAC must maintain a mixed force of manned and unmanned weapon systems in which one compliments and supplements the other." This vision strengthened the roots for what would become modern ICBM planning as a bomber system.

 

Applying early bomber leaders' vision

The operational insight into design and deployment of ICBMs by combat-tried bomber leaders was evident as the first ICBMs were fielded. From crew constructs to weapon system infrastructure, the influence of bomber operations could be recognized.

 

These leaders sought to field a new bomber system that would integrate into existing operations. The messages and approaches of these leaders in history teach that ICBMs were deliberately developed to support and enable U.S. combat bombing capability.

 

The lethality of deterrence using a combination of air platforms has stood the test of time and remains today as these capabilities support the freedom to conduct operations around the globe.

 

In terms of lessons learned in bomber weapon systems, the problems encountered fielding new conglomerations of systems by those early bomber leaders allowed them to rely on operational knowledge to foresee and overcome technical and operations related issues with ICBMs.

 

Maj. Gen. Charles M. McCorkle, a World War II P-51 pilot, developed the ICBM command and control structure and reported that, “In the command and control of function it will demand of our leaders and planners imagination, objectivity, and freedom from preconceived ideas that can only be compared with the demands made upon the military men when they first became the possessors of our old friend the airplane."

 

McCorkle’s message relating the thinking behind ICBM deployment to early use of aircraft may allude that a similar level of critical thinking can be used to help calibrate innovation in today's missile operations.

 

Likewise, he may be advocating that this thinking integrates a common operational role or understanding with other air power assets.

 

Doing so may help keep ICBMs aligned to compliment their intended mission in a combat-ready bomber force.

 

Whether missile wing personnel are part of a facility maintenance team making routine runs between sites, a camper team guarding an inoperative security system or a missile crew processing alarm after alarm, I believe it’s beneficial to study airpower leaders' messages and the history of ICBM integration into a combat-ready force structure.

 

Doing so may help to see challenges through a different lens and find solutions that will continue to provide this essential airpower.

 

As I have grown in my leadership role, I realize the importance of looking back at the history of the ICBM mission and airpower integration. Using lessons learned ensures that we can better grow our platforms and operations and be confident we are always combat-ready.

USAF Comments Policy
If you wish to comment, use the text box below. AF reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.

This is a moderated forum. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect. We will not post comments that contain abusive or vulgar language, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, violate EEO policy, are offensive to other or similar content. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly "off topic", promote services or products, infringe copyright protected material, or contain any links that don't contribute to the discussion. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted. The AF and the AF alone will make a determination as to which comments will be posted. Any references to commercial entities, products, services, or other non-governmental organizations or individuals that remain on the site are provided solely for the information of individuals using this page. These references are not intended to reflect the opinion of the AF, DoD, the United States, or its officers or employees concerning the significance, priority, or importance to be given the referenced entity, product, service, or organization. Such references are not an official or personal endorsement of any product, person, or service, and may not be quoted or reproduced for the purpose of stating or implying AF endorsement or approval of any product, person, or service.

Any comments that report criminal activity including: suicidal behaviour or sexual assault will be reported to appropriate authorities including OSI. This forum is not:

  • This forum is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact OSI or your local police agency.
  • Do not submit unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries to this forum. This site is not to be used for contracting or commercial business.
  • This forum may not be used for the submission of any claim, demand, informal or formal complaint, or any other form of legal and/or administrative notice or process, or for the exhaustion of any legal and/or administrative remedy.

AF does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this forum is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. AF may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. AF does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those websites that may be reached through links on our website.

Members of the media are asked to send questions to the public affairs through their normal channels and to refrain from submitting questions here as comments. Reporter questions will not be posted. We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. However, given the need to manage federal resources, moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular business hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible; in most cases, this means the next business day.

For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain "on-topic." This means that comments will be posted only as it relates to the topic that is being discussed within the blog post. The views expressed on the site by non-federal commentators do not necessarily reflect the official views of the AF or the Federal Government.

To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as name, Social Security number, DoD ID number, OSI Case number, phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment. If you do voluntarily include personally identifiable information in your comment, such as your name, that comment may or may not be posted on the page. If your comment is posted, your name will not be redacted or removed. In no circumstances will comments be posted that contain Social Security numbers, DoD ID numbers, OSI case numbers, addresses, email address or phone numbers. The default for the posting of comments is "anonymous", but if you opt not to, any information, including your login name, may be displayed on our site.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.