Il Sikorsky – Boeing SB-1 Defiant (stilizzata come "SB>1"; denominazione aziendale S-100) è la voce Sikorsky Aircraft e Boeing per il programma Future Vertical Lift dell'esercito degli Stati Uniti, ha di recente portato a termine l'iniziativa comune multi-ruolo. È un elicottero composto con rotori coassiali rigidi, alimentato da due T55 Honeywell e fatto il suo primo volo il 21 marzo 2019.
SB-1 Defiant
Ruolo Elicottero composto
origine nazionale Stati Uniti
fabbricante Velivoli Sikorsky / Boeing
Primo volo 21 marzo 2019
Stato In fase di sviluppo.
SVILUPPO
Sikorsky Aircraft e Boeing stanno producendo congiuntamente un dimostratore di medie dimensioni che chiamano SB> 1 Defiant (anche noto come "SB-1") per la prima fase del programma F.V.L. Il suo primo volo è stato ritardato all'inizio del 2018. Una volta iniziati i test di volo, l'aeromobile verrà valutato dall’US ARMY per ulteriori sviluppi. Sikorsky sta guidando lo sviluppo della fase uno con un aeromobile basato sul loro precedente progetto sperimentale Sikorsky X2.
Boeing ha in programma di condurre la seconda fase dimostrativa dei sistemi di missione. Il team Boeing-Sikorsky sembra avere un vantaggio, data la loro grande base industriale che dovrebbe tradursi in un più ampio supporto da parte del Congresso; il fatto che i loro progetti di elicotteri da trasporto sono attualmente i più utilizzati nell'esercito e perché l'esercito americano ha avuto scarso interesse per la tecnologia dei tiltrotor presentata dalla Bell.
Fino al 2013, Sikorsky e i partner hanno speso $ 250 milioni per X2 e Raider. La squadra e il velivolo saranno separati dal Raider S-97. Il team si sente fiducioso nell’SB-1 Defiant e sta pagando oltre la metà dei suoi costi di progettazione. L'ultimo progetto per cui le società hanno collaborato è stato il RAH-66 Comanche, iniziato negli anni '80 e costato $ 7 miliardi prima di essere cancellato nel 2004. Dicono che fattori al di fuori del loro controllo, come tagli al budget e un lungo il periodo di sviluppo causarono problemi con il Comanche. Nell'ambito del programma Comanche, ogni compagnia fornì diverse parti dell'aeromobile. La Swift Engineering Inc. supporta il programma con una parte importante della struttura della cellula progettata e prodotta nello stabilimento dell'azienda a San Clemente, in California, da un team integrato di dipendenti Swift e Boeing.
La sequenza temporale del primo volo è slittata più volte: inizialmente era previsto per il 2017, ma subentrarono ritardi dovuti alla necessità di implementare la produzione automatica di lame di posizionamento delle fibre su richiesta dell’US ARMY. Ulteriori ritardi hanno portato al primo volo oltre l'estate 2018. I sistemi dinamici come i turboshaft, la trasmissione e i rotori erano programmati per essere testati a West Palm Beach, in Florida, entro la fine di ottobre 2018, poi primo volo per raggiungere i 200 nodi (230 mph; 370 km / h) entro sei mesi.
Il primo prototipo è stato presentato a dicembre 2018 e il primo volo si è svolto all'inizio del 2019. Le prove a terra sono iniziate a gennaio 2019; Prima del primo volo erano necessarie 15 ore di prove a terra.
Il primo volo ha avuto luogo il 21 marzo 2019 nel sito Sikorsky West Palm Beach in Florida. Nell'estate del 2019, i voli sono stati sospesi per risolvere un problema ad un cuscinetto del rotore principale. I test di volo sono ripresi il 24 settembre 2019.
PROGETTO
L’elicottero composito avrà una velocità di crociera di 250 kn (290 mph; 460 km / h), ma meno autonomia grazie all'uso del "vecchio" motore T55. Un nuovo motore, il Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE), dovrà soddisfare i requisiti di autonomia di 229 nmi (264 mi; 424 km). Rispetto agli elicotteri convenzionali, i rotori principali coassiali controrotanti e l'elica spingente offrono un aumento della velocità di 100 nodi (115 mph; 185 km / h), un'estensione del raggio di combattimento del 60% e prestazioni migliori del 50% nelle prestazioni hover hot-hot.
La Sikorsky ha confermato che il design X2 non è adatto alle dimensioni di sollevamento pesante, e suggerisce invece il CH-53K per il sollevamento di carichi pesanti. Tuttavia, Sikorsky ha in programma di costruire il JMR-TD della classe di 30.000 libbre (14.000 kg) (con una cabina del 50% più grande del Black Hawk) per eliminare i dubbi sulla scalabilità della tecnologia X-2.
Sikorsky – Boeing affermano che l'SB-1 sarà veloce e agile, con accelerazione e decelerazione veloci, movimento rapido da un lato all'altro e la capacità di librarsi con la coda su e il muso verso il basso. Il dimostratore Defiant sarà alimentato dall’ Honeywell T55, la stessa turbina che alimenta il Chinook CH-47. Sarà leggermente modificato per funzionare meglio a velocità dell'elica più basse, fino all'85% di giri / min.
Defiant, Raider e SARA volano insieme nella prima demo pubblica
Tre degli elicotteri sperimentali Sikorsky e della Lockheed Martin hanno volato insieme per la prima volta in una dimostrazione pubblica presso la struttura di test di volo della società.
Il dimostratore coassiale Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant ha fatto il suo debutto in volo pubblico raggiungendo una velocità di crociera di 140 nodi e dimostrando agilità a bassa velocità a livelli acustici inferiori rispetto a un elicottero convenzionale. Tra il pubblico c'erano il Segretario dell'Esercito Ryan McCarthy e il Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., un ex pilota dell'esercito americano UH-60 Black Hawk il cui velivolo è stato abbattuto in Iraq nel 2004.
Il presidente di Sikorsky, Dan Schultz, ha confermato che il volo del Defiant rappresenta quasi 500 milioni di dollari di investimenti in oltre 12 anni di sviluppo. Dal suo primo volo nel marzo 2019, il Defiant ha registrato 24 ore di volo su 13 voli. L'aereo ha volato quasi ogni settimana nel 2020, e continua a spingere il limite del suo regime durante i test di volo.
Secondo il pilota collaudatore di Sikorsky, Bill Fell, il velivolo dovrebbe raggiungere una velocità massima di circa 250 nodi nei prossimi mesi, mentre la compagnia continua a dimostrare la capacità del Defiant. Il velivolo dimostrerà anche la sua capacità di raggiungere velocità di 200 nodi volando da 100 a 50 piedi dal suolo.
L'S-97 Raider, seguendo le prestazioni della Defiant, ha dimostrato manovre di agilità a bassa velocità e ha raggiunto una velocità di crociera di 180 nodi, anche se è in grado di raggiungere velocità più elevate. E il Sikorsky Autonomy Research Aircraft (SARA) ha seguito entrambi con una dimostrazione che mostrava manovre di volo autonome; decollo e atterraggio in diversi punti della pista, il tutto controllato da un tablet
Il Defiant è offerto del team Sikorsky-Boeing per la competizione Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) dell'Esercito. È stato costruito per il programma Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) del servizio che si è concluso lo scorso autunno. Il JMR TD aveva lo scopo di informare il servizio per dare forma ai requisiti del Future Vertical Lift.
Su una linea temporale ristretta ma con finanziamenti aggiuntivi, l'esercito statunitense sta tentando di mettere in campo la FLRAA entro il 2030.
Sikorsky e Boeing si oppongono alla Bell, che ha anche costruito e fatto volare un prototipo per il programma JMR TD. Il primo volo del V-280 Valor della Bell è stato effettuato nel dicembre 2017 e la compagnia ha per lo più concluso due anni di volo dell'aereo e di raccolta dati per informare anche il programma FLRAA. La Bell ha di recente dimostrato le capacità del V280 Valor.
Il Defiant ha avuto difficoltà a decollare a causa di problemi nella produzione delle pale del rotore. Il suo primo volo è stato nel marzo 2019.
L’Us Army ha in programma di assegnare contratti a marzo per una dimostrazione competitiva e per la riduzione dei rischi per la FLRAA. Mentre il servizio ha già avuto un robusto programma di dimostrazione tecnologica, compresa un'estensione, il gen. Wally Rugen, che è responsabile della modernizzazione dell'Esercito, ha detto ai giornalisti il mese scorso che lo sforzo di progettazione non raccoglie gli stessi dati di un prototipo dimostrativo o di un sistema d'arma a pieno regime.
Al contrario, il servizio utilizzerà un contratto con l'Other Transaction Authority per iniziare lo sforzo del CDRR. Il CDRR consisterà in due fasi che dureranno circa un anno ciascuna. Questo darà al servizio l'opportunità di continuare a far volare i velivoli dimostrativi e bruciare quel rischio intrinseco nello sviluppo di un nuovo elicottero.
Il servizio vuole assegnare i contratti FLRAA nel quarto trimestre dell'anno fiscale 2021 per i progetti preliminari con una revisione di tali progetti nel secondo trimestre dell'anno fiscale 23, un primo volo nel terzo trimestre dell'anno fiscale 24, seguito da una revisione critica del progetto nel quarto trimestre dell'anno fiscale 24, secondo una richiesta di informazioni pubblicata nell'aprile 2019.
Avendo visto sia il Valor che il Defiant volare in stretta successione, McCarthy ha detto ai giornalisti che le capacità di entrambi i velivoli stanno "rendendo la decisione molto difficile per noi".
Duckworth ha detto, dopo la dimostrazione, che come ex pilota di Black Hawk, "sbavava là fuori sugli spalti", ma ha anche ammonito che non si tratta di quanto sia "sexy" un aereo, ma se la sua capacità "amplia la gamma di opzioni" per i comandanti a terra nel futuro combattimento e porta più capacità ad un prezzo accessibile per il contribuente.
Ma Duckworth ha aggiunto che personalmente vuole che un futuro elicottero abbia un livello di agilità molto più capace e una velocità molto maggiore, aggiungendo che il suo Black Hawk è stato abbattuto a 10 piedi sopra gli alberi andando a 100 nodi, dimostrando che la capacità di un futuro elicottero di superare le minacce con la manovra è fondamentale.
ENGLISH
The Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant (stylized as "SB>1"; company designation S-100) is the Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing entry for the United States Army's Future Vertical Lift program, succeeding the Joint Multi-Role initiative. It is a compound helicopter with rigid coaxial rotors, powered by two Honeywell T55s, and made its first flight on 21 March 2019.
Development
Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing are jointly producing a medium-lift-sized demonstrator they call SB>1 Defiant (also widely known as "SB-1") for phase one of the program. Originally planned to fly in late 2017, its first flight was delayed in April 2017 to early 2018. Once flight testing begins, the aircraft will be evaluated by the Army for further development. Sikorsky is leading the development of phase one with an aircraft based on their previous Sikorsky X2 design.
Boeing plans to lead phase two, which is the mission systems demonstrator phase. The Boeing-Sikorsky team is seen to have an advantage, given their big industrial base that should result in wider support from Congress, the fact that their transport helicopter designs are currently the most used in the Army, and because the US Army has had little interest in tiltrotor technology, like that submitted by Bell.
Up to 2013, Sikorsky and partners have spent $250 million on X2 and Raider. The team and aircraft will be separate from the S-97 Raider. The team feels confident in the SB-1 Defiant and is paying for more than half of its design costs. The last project the companies teamed up for was the RAH-66 Comanche, which started in the 1980s and cost $7 billion before being cancelled in 2004. They say that factors outside their control, like budget cuts, "requirement creep", and a long development period caused problems with the Comanche and not team dysfunctionality. Under the Comanche program, each company built different parts of the aircraft. For JMR, employees from both companies will work together. The team named the suppliers in 2015. Swift Engineering Inc. supports the program with a major portion of the airframe structure designed and manufactured at the company's facility in San Clemente, California by an integrated team of Swift and Boeing employees.
The timeline for the first flight has slipped several times. Originally scheduled for 2017, delays arose due to a requirement to implement automated fiber placement blade manufacture at the request of the U.S. Army. Further delays resulted in the first flight slipping past summer 2018. Dynamic systems like turboshafts, transmission, and rotors were scheduled to be tested at West Palm Beach, Florida, by the end of October 2018, before ground runs in November, then first flight to reach 200 knots (230 mph; 370 km/h) within six months.
The first prototype was unveiled in December 2018, and the first flight was pushed to sometime in early 2019. Ground runs began in January 2019; 15 hours of ground tests were needed before the first flight.
The first flight took place on 21 March 2019 at Sikorsky West Palm Beach site in Florida. In the summer of 2019, flights were suspended to address a bearing issue with the main rotor. Flight testing resumed 24 September 2019.
Design
The design will have a cruise speed of 250 kn (290 mph; 460 km/h), but less range due to using the "old" T55 engine. A new engine, the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE), is to meet the range requirement of 229 nmi (264 mi; 424 km). Compared to conventional helicopters, the counter-rotating coaxial main rotors and pusher propeller offer a 100-knot (115 mph; 185 km/h) speed increase, a 60% combat radius extension, and 50% better performance in high-hot hover performance.
Sikorsky has said that the X2 design is not suitable for heavy-lift size, and instead suggests the CH-53K for heavy-lift and tiltrotor for the ultra-class. However, Sikorsky plans to build the 30,000-pound-class (14,000 kg) JMR-TD (with a cabin 50% larger than the Black Hawk) at full scale to remove doubts about the scalability of the X-2 technology.
Sikorsky–Boeing states the SB-1 will be quick and nimble, with fast acceleration and deceleration, fast side-to-side movement, and the capability to hover with the tail up and nose down. The Defiant demonstrator will be powered by the Honeywell T55, which powers the CH-47 Chinook. It will be slightly modified to better operate at slower propeller speeds, down to 85% rpm.
Defiant, Raider and SARA fly together in first public demo
Check out the flight demo put on for Army leadership of the SB>1 Defiant, one of two tech demonstrators being evaluated for Future Vertical Lift.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Three of Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky’s experimental helicopters flew together for the first time in a public demonstration Feb. 20 at the company’s flight test facility.
The Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant coaxial demonstrator made its public flight debut reaching a cruise speed of 140 knots and demonstrating low-speed agility at lower acoustic levels compared to a conventional helicopter. The audience included Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk pilot whose aircraft was shot down in Iraq in 2004.
Sikorsky’s President Dan Schultz told the audience at the demonstration that Defiant’s flight is representative of almost $500 million of investment in over 12 years of development. Since it’s first flight in March 2019, Defiant has logged 24 hours of flight time over 13 flights. The aircraft has flown almost every week in 2020 so far as it continues to push the envelope in its flight test regime.
According to Sikorsky test pilot, Bill Fell, the aircraft should reach maximum speed capability of roughly 250 knots within the next few months as the company continues to prove out Defiant’s capability. The aircraft will also demonstrate its ability to achieve speeds of 200 knots flying 100 to 50 feet above the ground.
The S-97 Raider, following Defiant’s performance, demonstrated low-speed agility maneuvers and reached a cruise speed of 180 knots, although it is capable of hitting higher speeds. And the Sikorsky Autonomy Research Aircraft (SARA) followed both with a demonstration exhibiting autonomous flight maneuvers; taking off and landing at several points on the runway all while being controlled from a tablet
You're gonna want to watch the impressive maneuverability of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider during a flight demo for Army leadership in Florida.
Defiant is the Sikorsky-Boeing team’s offering for the Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. It was built for the service’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program which wrapped up last fall. The JMR TD was intended to inform the service in order to shape requirements for Future Vertical Lift aircraft.
On a tight timeline but with additional funding, the U.S. Army is attempting to field FLRAA by 2030.
Sikorsky and Boeing are pitted against Bell, which also built and flew a prototype for the JMR TD program. Bell’s V-280 Valor’s first flight was in December 2017 and the company has mostly wrapped up two years of flying the aircraft and collecting data to also inform the FLRAA program. Bell demonstrated Valor’s capability for McCarthy in January.
Defiant had a more difficult time getting off the ground due to issues in manufacturing its rotor blades. Its first flight was in March 2019.
The Army is planning to award contracts in March for a Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction effort for FLRAA. While the service has already had a robust technology demonstrator program, including an extension, Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, who is in charge of the Army’s Future Vertical Lift modernization, told reporters last month that the effort by design doesn’t garner the same data as a prototype demonstration or a full-up weapon system.
Instead, the service will use an Other Transaction Authority contract to begin the CDRR effort. The CDRR will consist of two phases that last approximately one year each. This will give the service an opportunity to continue to fly demonstrator aircraft and burn down that inherent risk in developing a new helicopter.
The service wants to award FLRAA contracts in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 for preliminary designs with a review of those designs in the second quarter of FY23, a first flight in the third quarter of FY24, followed by a critical design review in the fourth quarter of FY24, according a request for information published in April 2019.
Having seen both Valor and Defiant fly in close succession, McCarthy told reporters the capabilities of both aircraft is “making the decision very difficult for us.”
Duckworth said, after the demonstration, that as a former Black Hawk pilot, she was “salivating out there in the stands,” but also cautioned that it’s not about how “sexy” an aircraft is, but whether its capability “expands the range of options” for commanders on the ground in the future fight and brings more capability for an affordable price for the taxpayer.
But Duckworth did add that she personally wants a future helicopter to have a much more capable level of agility and much greater speed, adding her Black Hawk was shot down 10 feet over the trees going 100 knots, demonstrating that the capability of a future helicopter to build up speed quickly and outmaneuver threats is paramount.
Giulio Douhet (Caserta, 30 maggio 1869 – Roma, 15 febbraio 1930) è stato un generale italiano, teorico della guerra aerea, contemporaneo degli altri sostenitori del bombardamento strategico Billy Mitchell e sir Hugh Trenchard. Nel 1921 pubblicò il trattato Il dominio dell'aria che ebbe una grande influenza sui contemporanei e ancora oggi è oggetto di studi nell’ambito aeronautico-militare.
Biografia
Giulio Douhet, (Giulio Felice Giovanni Battista all'anagrafe) nasce da una famiglia di origini savoiarde. Il padre, ufficiale farmacista del Regio Esercito, scelse di diventare cittadino del Regno di Sardegna dopo la cessione del 1860 di Nizza e Savoia. Dopo l'Unità d'Italia (17 marzo 1861) venne trasferito a Caserta, dove nacque Giulio che a vent'anni frequentò l'Accademia Militare di Modena, da cui uscì col grado di sottotenente dei bersaglieri. Si iscrisse anche al Politecnico di Torino, laureandosi in ingegneria.
La sua carriera militare fu travagliata. Nel 1911, durante la guerra italo-turca per il controllo della Libia, gli venne assegnato il compito di scrivere un rapporto sull'uso dell'aviazione da guerra. In esso teorizzò che l'unico uso efficace era il bombardamento da alta quota. In effetti, il primo impiego bellico di aeroplani della storia fu condotto dagli Italiani nel corso di quel conflitto e il primo bombardamento fu messo in pratica il 1º novembre 1911 da Giulio Gavotti della sezione aviazione del Battaglione specialisti del Genio, che bombardò le posizioni turche di Ain Zara.
Il 27 giugno del 1912 la legge numero 698 istituiva il Servizio Aeronautico, presso la Direzione Generale Genio ed Artiglieria e creava il Battaglione Aviatori con reparti di aeroplani e scuole di volo presso l'Aeroporto di Torino-Mirafiori. Douhet, promosso maggiore, divenne il comandante del battaglione dal 13 novembre 1913 e l'organizzò in squadriglie perfettamente autonome dal punto di vista organizzativo e logistico, dotandole di aviorimesse smontabili, automezzi e carri officina.
Lo stesso anno promosse un'iniziativa per la raccolta di tutti i cimeli aeronautici militari italiani che si erano ormai accumulati dal 1884, epoca dei primi aerostieri del Genio. L'iniziativa portò alla realizzazione del primo museo aeronautico in Italia, costituito acquisendo la sede del Museo storico del Genio a Roma presso Castel Sant'Angelo. La collezione, dopo molti spostamenti e vicissitudini ha costituito la base dell'attuale museo storico dell'Aeronautica Militare di Vigna di Valle.
Scrisse il libro Regole per l'uso degli aeroplani in guerra, uno dei primi manuali di dottrina sulla materia, ma le sue teorie vennero viste come troppo radicali. Nella seconda metà del 1914, Douhet si assunse la responsabilità di far avviare alla Caproni la costruzione del grosso bombardiere trimotore Ca.31, malgrado il parere contrario del generale Maurizio Mario Moris, ispettore dell’Aeronautica.
La prima guerra mondiale
Per questo atto privo di autorizzazione venne allontanato dall'aviazione e destinato alla Fanteria, con incarico a Edolo di Capo di stato maggiore della 5ª Divisione a Milano e, allo scoppio della prima guerra mondiale, sul fronte dell'Adamello.
Douhet cominciò a invocare un massiccio investimento nella costruzione di aerei da bombardamento, per ottenere il controllo dell'aria e privare il nemico delle difese. Propose la costruzione di cinquecento bombardieri in grado di lanciare 125 tonnellate di bombe al giorno. Scrisse nel 1916 ai superiori e ai vertici politici per promuovere le proprie idee e criticare l'incompetenza in materia degli alti comandi. L'atteggiamento critico riguardo alla conduzione della guerra da parte del Capo di Stato Maggiore dell'Esercito, il generale Cadorna, gli procurò l'ostilità delle alte gerarchie. Un memoriale diretto a Leonida Bissolati, assai critico nel contenuto verso lo Stato Maggiore, venne intercettato e ne conseguì l'arresto e un processo militare per diffusione di notizie riservate. Douhet venne conseguentemente condannato a un anno di carcere militare, che espiò nel forte di Fenestrelle[6] e al termine, nell'ottobre 1917, posto in congedo militare.
Fu richiamato in dicembre in servizio come capo della neo costituita direzione generale di Aviazione del Ministero delle armi e munizioni nel dicembre 1917, ma lasciò di nuovo polemicamente il servizio quando entrò in conflitto con Ferdinando Maria Perrone, dell'Ansaldo, su questioni relative alle commesse il 4 giugno del 1918, chiudendo di fatto la sua carriera nell’esercito.
Il dopoguerra
Nel 1920, mentre era un colonnello in congedo, fondò l'Unione nazionale ufficiali e soldati e, sulla scorta di analoghe iniziative già attuate in Francia e in altri Paesi coinvolti nella "Grande Guerra", propose di erigere monumenti ai caduti della "Grande Guerra" in ogni città d'Italia e - primo in Italia - di onorare i caduti italiani le cui salme non erano state identificate, con la creazione di un monumento al Milite Ignoto a Roma, presso il Vittoriano.
Intanto il Tribunale supremo di guerra e marina nel novembre 1920 annullò la condanna del 1916 e fu reintegrato in servizio con il grado di maggiore generale e posto in aspettativa.
Il dominio dell’aria
Nel 1921 pubblicò, a cura del il ministero della Guerra, Il dominio dell'aria, il suo libro più noto, che ebbe molta fortuna all'estero. Tale saggio fu oggetto di attento studio, particolarmente da parte dei fautori della nascente specialità dell'aeronautica militare come l'americano Billy Mitchell, che ebbe modo di conoscere nel 1922 e al quale illustrò la sua opera. Le forze armate britanniche invece non prestarono apparentemente attenzione al libro e gli autori britannici ritengono sia stato Hugh Trenchard, il padre della Royal Air Force il primo teorico del bombardamento strategico, poi di fatto attuato durante la seconda guerra mondiale, sotto le direttive di Sir Arthur Harris.
Fu promosso generale di divisione nel 1923, restando in aspettativa. È da segnalare che le teorie di Douhet trovarono, fra le due guerre, un certo seguito anche nell'Unione Sovietica: alla metà degli anni trenta le forze aeree dell'URSS disponevano di circa 1000 bombardieri bimotori e quadrimotori destinati all'attacco strategico.
Nel 1922 iniziò a collaborare con il Popolo d'Italia di Mussolini che, dopo la marcia su Roma, gli diede l'incarico di responsabile dell'aviazione militare ma, criticato dagli ambienti militari e navali, presto abbandonò per dedicarsi interamente allo studio.
Douhet non conseguì mai il brevetto di pilota. Scrittore e polemista brillante, scrisse anche due brevi opere che oggigiorno verrebbero classificate come fantapolitica: La vittoria alata e La guerra del '19. Nella prima si immagina un finale alternativo della prima guerra mondiale: gli Imperi Centrali sono costretti alla capitolazione non da una sconfitta sui fronti terrestri bensì da un'offensiva aerea strategica. Nel secondo, collocato temporalmente negli anni trenta del XX secolo, si immagina una guerra tra Francia e Belgio da un lato e una riarmata Germania; vince la Germania che punta su di una forte aviazione strategica e sugli attacchi ai centri urbani del nemico. Coerentemente con sé stesso, Douhet, anche nelle opere di finzione, riteneva necessaria e sufficiente per il conseguimento della vittoria una forte aviazione strategica.
La scomparsa e la tomba
Morì nel 1930 colpito da un infarto, mentre coltivava rose nel suo giardino. È sepolto, insieme alla moglie, Teresa (Gina) Casalis, che morì nel 1960.
Nel 2008 un articolo sulla rivista della Associazione arma aeronautica denunciò lo stato di degrado della tomba. L'articolo portò al lancio di iniziative per il restauro, che si completarono in occasione della commemorazione degli 80 anni dalla morte, con una cerimonia il 19 febbraio 2010 presso il cimitero, con deposizione di una corona di alloro alla presenza degli allievi della Scuola Militare Aeronautica Giulio Douhet, l'istituto di formazione militare con sede a Firenze che l'Aeronautica Militare ha voluto intitolargli nel 2006. Il portale web dell'Aeronautica Militare ha proposto una pagina, intitolata "I grandi aviatori", dove vengono citate le maggiori personalità storiche dell'aviazione italiana, ponendo Douhet tra di esse.
La dottrina sul dominio dell’aria
Secondo Douhet l'aeroplano non poteva più essere inteso solo come un mezzo ausiliario dell'Esercito e della Marina per colpire obiettivi terrestri e navali, bensì era diventato l'unico mezzo per combattere una terza lotta nella nuova dimensione, l'aria. Il generale auspicava dunque parallelamente alla permanenza delle Aviazioni dell'Esercito e della Marina, la formazione di una "terza sorella": l'"Armata Aerea". Questa sarebbe stata la sola e unica forza armata capace di garantire la conquista del "dominio dell'aria", conquista necessaria per proteggere i cieli italiani dall'aggressione di mezzi aerei nemici e unico mezzo capace di garantire il possesso dei cieli avversari in un conflitto.
Incidentalmente si osserva che Douhet era scettico sulle possibilità di difesa antiaerea, sia a mezzo caccia sia tramite artiglieria e, conseguentemente, non riteneva si dovesse investire negli aeroplani da caccia, teorizzò invece come guerra di "contraviazione" il bombardamento dei campi da volo nemici attraverso materiale esplosivo che crei "imbuti di scoppio".
Douhet prevedeva, sin dalle premesse della sua opera, un impiego di massicci quantitativi di aeroplani, dispiegati in grosse formazioni.
Secondo i detrattori, invece, egli affermava che l'obiettivo dei bombardamenti incendiari, chimici e batteriologici dovevano essere non tanto le forze armate avversarie, ma soprattutto le popolazioni civili e le città densamente popolate. Douhet nel suo trattato scrisse di bombe "velenose" il cui effetto aveva una durata limitata e presumibilmente, come tradussero gli americani, faceva riferimento ai gas già sperimentati durante la prima guerra mondiale.
Le teorie di Douhet furono e tuttora sono oggetto di studio e controversia da parte degli storici militari e degli studiosi di strategia dagli anni venti del ventesimo secolo fino ad oggi. Nel 1945 la realizzazione e l'impiego bellico delle armi nucleari, cui seguì la resa incondizionata del Giappone, sembrò confermare le teorie di Douhet. Gli studiosi hanno analizzato le principali campagne militari dalla seconda guerra mondiale fino ai recenti avvenimenti dei Balcani, dell'Afghanistan e dell'Iraq. Tutti riconoscono l'imprescindibilità del potere aereo, ma pochi concordano che una campagna militare possa essere decisa solamente dall'aeronautica.
Le teorie di Douhet vennero subito criticate in Italia, tanto da portarlo allo scontro con l'establishment militare (anche se forse l'ostilità era più diretta all'uomo - e ai gruppi di interesse che lo sostenevano - che non alle teorie che egli promuoveva). Nella seconda guerra mondiale la guerra aerea ha visto gli impieghi massicci di bombardieri strategici che lui preconizzava, ma i bombardamenti aerei a tappeto delle città inglesi e tedesche non sono bastati a risolvere da soli il conflitto, mentre lo spettro di una totale distruzione nucleare portò il Giappone alla resa. Né le guerre successive al 1945 hanno confermato le teorie del Douhet. La netta superiorità aerea delle forze delle Nazioni Unite non impedì che la guerra di Corea si trascinasse per oltre tre anni con ingenti costi umani e materiali. Né il bombardamento strategico assicurò la vittoria agli Stati Uniti d'America nella guerra del Vietnam.
Per contro, in altre campagne come la guerra delle Falkland, combattuta dal Regno Unito e dall'Argentina per il possesso dell'Arcipelago delle Falkland nell'Oceano Atlantico, si è rivelata imprescindibile e decisiva l'azione dell'aviazione tattica. Quindi le visioni apocalittiche di Douhet si sono dimostrate nello stesso tempo corrette e no: corrette nel profetizzare una nuova forma di guerra; non corrette nel suggerire che l'uso del bombardamento aereo sarebbe stato il metodo decisivo per vincere qualsiasi guerra del futuro.
Opere:
I problemi dell'aeronavigazione, Roma, 1910
Norme per l'impiego degli aeroplani in guerra, Roma, 1913
L'Arte della guerra, Torino, 1915
Autodifesa. Documento difensivo relativo alla disfatta di Caporetto, Città di Castello, 1919
Come finì la grande guerra. La vittoria alata, Roma, 1919
Diario critico di guerra 1915-16, Torino 1921-22
L'onorevole che non poté più mentire, Roma, 1921, (romanzo)
Il dominio dell'aria, Roma, 1921
La difesa nazionale, Torino, 1923
Sintesi critica della grande guerra: Probabili aspetti della guerra futura, Palermo, 1928
Le profezie di Cassandra (raccolta di scritti a cura di Gherardo Pantano), Livorno, 1931.
Onorificenze: Medaglia commemorativa italiana della vittoria.
ENGLISH
Giulio Douhet, The Command of The Air (1921/1927)
Giulio Douhet, an Italian army officer who never learnt to fly, first published one of military theory’s most recognized and controversial works on airpower, The Command of The Air, in 1921. Just three years after the end of the First World War and the first widespread use of airplanes in warfare, this new technology had yet to be fully integrated into military strategy. Douhet advocated a new strategic application for what he identified as the airplane’s superior capabilities in order to avoid the destructive stalemate of the First World War in future wars. Promising a quick and decisive end to war, The Command of The Air synthesized concepts, namely strategic bombing, an independent air force, the dominance of an offensive strategy, and breaking the will of the civilian population, among others, which contributed to the development of the modern air force. Though he was one of many who reflected on airpower’s rapid strategic development, Douhet “stated the case for airpower as no one else did—with all the stops out.” This essay will trace the development of Douhet’s concepts of airpower, as identified by his critics and military historians, from his early military career to The Command of The Air.
The Command of The Air was originally published by the Italian Ministry of War. However, there are several editions and translations. The most widely read is Douhet’s second edition, published in 1927. Besieged by criticism from the Italian Army and Navy and nearing the end of his life, Douhet added material to the approximately 80-page first edition to defend his opinions even more forcefully. Douhet would pass away in 1930. Still yet, a third edition with an introduction by Italo Balbo, one of Benito Mussolini’s closest Lieutenants and supporter of Douhet, was published in 1932. Then, a fourth edition published by the Italian Air Force in 1955 was issued to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Douhet’s death. For the definitive English language version, Dino Ferrari’s 1942 translation of the second edition, published by Coward McCann and then re-printed by the U.S. Office of Air Force History in 1983 and again in 1998, stands out. This version is in fact a collection of Douhet’s principal writings, of which The Command of The Air comprises one of the four collected works translated by Ferrari. Though there are other English language translations, Ferrari’s is the most widely recognized and is used by the U.S. military.
Giulio Douhet’s Military Career
Douhet’s enthusiasm for airpower was grounded in his early interest in engineering and the sciences. Born the son of an army officer in 1869, Douhet graduated from Accademia di Artiglieria e Genio, the artillery and engineering academy of the Italian army, in 1888 at the top of his class and was commissioned as a Lieutenant. He followed on to advance his studies in engineering at the Polytechnic Institute in Turin where he graduated with distinction. There, he earned the praise of his professors for his interest in the latest mechanical advancements with his thesis paper titled, ‘The Calculation of Rotating Field Engines.’ Douhet then combined his exceptional mechanical science background with study of the theories of military strategy, logistics, and tactics at the School of Warfare in Turin. Upon graduating from the School of Warfare, Douhet took up various positions in the Italian army until 1900 when he attained recognition for his brilliance in applying new technologies for military purposes and was assigned to the Italian Army’s General Staff.
Once assigned to the General Staff in 1900, Douhet began to garner attention for his military analysis and advocacy for the military’s mechanization. Prior to the invention of the airplane, Douhet was advancing his foundational concept of The Command of The Air—that the character of warfare will be altered by the modern military’s adoption of new technology and mechanization. From 1901-1904 he gave a series of lectures he called Mechanization from the Point of View of the Military that warned of the implications of advancing technology upon warfare. Even prior to the invention of the airplane, and against the backdrop of the advancements in the automobile, electricity, gasoline, and the ‘Second Industrial Revolution,’ Douhet had concluded that future conflicts would be won or lost on the basis of whether or not militaries harnessed these new inventions to alter the conduct of war.
The pace with which Douhet and his airpower contemporaries crafted their theories is remarkable. In 1905 Italy built its first dirigible and in 1908 flew its first airplane. In 1911 Italy became the first country to utilize airplanes in combat during the Libyan War over Tripoli. Immediately, the debate between dirigibles and airplanes grasped at inadequate metaphors from naval combat. The dirigible gained early favor from the majority of military leaders who envisioned aircraft conducting only reconnaissance in support of land movements and naval operations. Douhet however immediately identified the superiority of the airplane and recognized its potential to alter the character of war, much to the frustration of his superiors. The pages of military journals such as La preparazione featured intellectual duals between Douhet and his dirigible supporting opponents. Carlo Montù, an artillery officer and early supporter of dirigibles, proposed that dirigibles be deployed individually, rather than in fleets, and against targets on the ground and at sea.
Douhet’s argument in his debate with Carlo Montù, that airpower should be deployed as a mass, is often compared by scholars of military history to Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval strategy. Mahan argued that naval power should be massed against the decisive point. Douhet, like Mahan in the 1890s, “developed a doctrine for [its] optimal strategic employment that closely resembled the Jominan version of Napoleonic warfare. Airplanes, like warships and armies, should be massed against the decisive point. That point was located not in the armed forces of the enemy, but in his economic and administrative centers, which were so vulnerable to aerial attack,” argues John Shy. The parallels between the strategies of Mahan and Douhet are a constant source of comparison for scholars.
Despite the recognition of Douhet’s brilliance early in his military career, he was not the first nor only observer to write about the transformative power of warfare’s mechanization, especially in the third dimension, the air. Several of Douhet’s contemporaries also responded to the rapid mechanization of the world’s militaries and the devastation of the First World War by developing airpower theory and strategy. Together with Hugh “Boom” Trenchard, H.G. Wells, and William “Billy” Mitchell, Douhet became an early airpower visionary. Over the course of decades, in comparison to the centuries of development for sea and land warfare concepts, airpower theorists rapidly sought to understand how this new technology would alter the character of warfare. Douhet stands out from his contemporaries because, as the Editors’ Introduction to The Command of The Air in the Air Force History and Museums Program’s 1998 re-print states, “much of what Douhet propounded was not original with him, but his were perhaps the most coherent, the most systematic, and the most prophetic airpower writings of the era.” In writing The Command of The Air, Douhet not only became an advocate for, but a strategist of airpower recognized for not only his controversial concepts but his contribution to an enduring debate which continues today.
Douhet’s early and prolific efforts to advocate for his concepts of airpower caused conflict among the Italian general staff throughout his career. His opinions were viewed as fantastical to some and earned him a reputation as a ‘radical.’ Douhet was assigned to write a report on the Libyan War’s significance for future employment of aircraft and he used the opportunity to try to convince his superiors of the airplane’s potential to alter warfare. It is in this report and a 1912 manual titled, “Rules for the Use of Airplanes in War,” that Douhet began to advocate for airplanes to conduct “high-altitude bombing” while his superiors, and much of the world’s militaries, were focused on aerial reconnaissance. The airplane could do more than observe troops and defend against intruding observation aircraft, wrote Douhet. Despite his differences with superiors, Douhet’s reports, and the vision he displayed for organizing an Air Force, earned him a new position as Commander of the Aviation Battalion.
Frustrated by bureaucratic battles against the supporters of dirigibles, Douhet encouraged the Italian aeronautical engineer, Giovanni “Gianni” Caproni, to construct the first bomber airplane without the support of the Ministry of War. Once the plane, the Caproni 300, was ready for production, Douhet went to his superiors to argue for the purchase of the plane and anti-aircraft artillery. Witness to Europe’s military build-up in advance of World War I, Douhet warned the Ministry of War of the consequences of aerial bombardment. Douhet envisioned the destruction of Italy’s coastal cities from the air, and with them its materiel and morale. In his biographical dissertation of Douhet, Frank Capelluti writes that “this is the first clear indication of the strategic bombing concept as it developed in Douhet’s mind.” Though strategic bombing would become one of the most influential concepts of airpower theory, Douhet’s impatience had put him at odds with his superior, Commander of the Inspectorate, Colonel Maurizio Moris, and landed him a transfer to the infantry on the eve of the First World War. Relieved from his position as Commander of the Aviation Battalion, Douhet began World War I as Chief of Staff for troops at Edolo while airplanes took to the skies overhead.
From his position as Chief of Staff, Douhet came to the opinion that the ground offensive against Austria was unwinnable and began to criticize the general staff’s strategy to members of the Italian parliament. By September 1917 nearly a million men had lost their lives in offensives that moved the Italian front barely 30 miles into Austria. Douhet’s criticism charged the general staff with misuse of aviation and once again called for strategic bombing of targets in Austria. For his criticism, Douhet faced court-martial in 1916 and served one year in prison. Douhet was released from prison on October 15, 1917 and returned to duty. That month, just as Douhet predicted in his criticism that had resulted in his court-martial, Italy suffered its most terrible defeat of the First World War at Caporetto. The events of Caporetto were later officially determined to confirm Douhet’s criticism and his court-martial was expunged in 1920. Upon returning to service, Douhet was named Central Director of Aviation at the General Air Commissariat. “[I]n only a few months conflict broke out between the ideas which sprang like sparks from his keen intelligence and fertile imagination, and bureaucratic resistance to the intrusion of innovations dealing with the new air weapon,” according to Raymond Flugel’s dissertation on Douhet’s influence on United States airpower doctrine. In 1921, the year The Command of The Air was published, Douhet resigned to focus his attention on writing.
Douhet’s tenets of airpower in The Command of The Air are the product of both a synthesis of theories and concepts developed by his contemporaries and an evolution of his own thinking expressed throughout his service in the military. It is in The Command of The Air that Douhet consolidates and refines a career of prophetic ideas and observations into what became a foundational document of airpower doctrine and strategy. Douhet’s central thesis establishes aviation’s capability to transform warfare through the technological superiority of the airplane over surface warfare capabilities. In effect, The Command of The Air defines the results, consequences and opportunities this new technology will have on warfare. “This new arm had sprung suddenly into the field of war; and its characteristics, radically different from those of any other arm employed up to that time, were still undefined,” writes Douhet in his first chapter, titled, The New Form of War. Defining airpower was Douhet’s life work and The Command of The Air was Douhet’s most sweeping, organized, and complete strategy.
For Douhet, the consequences of this “new arm” in the field of warfare eliminates the notion of a ‘front’ that was prevalent during the First World War. As a result of the airplane’s ability to enter an enemy’s territory, countries are required to gain command of the air to both cause and prevent the destruction of the nation behind the fortified lines of defense. This new consequence of the changing nature of war led Douhet to define command of the air as the ability to deny the enemy the ability to fly while retaining that ability for yourself. This is necessary because, “by virtue of this new weapon, the repercussions of war are no longer limited by the farthest artillery range of surface guns, but can be directly felt for hundreds of miles over all the lands and seas of nations at war. No longer can areas exist in which life can be lived in safety and tranquility, nor can the battlefield any longer be limited to actual combatants. On the contrary, the battlefield will be limited only by the boundaries of the nations at war, and all of their citizens will become combatants, since all of them will be exposed to the aerial offensives of the enemy. There will be no distinction any longer between soldiers and civilians… All of this must inevitably effect a profound change in the form of future wars, because essential characteristics of those wars will be radically different from those of any previous ones,” according to Douhet. This conceptualization of the effects of developments in aerial warfare has continued to be a source of debate for airpower theorists up to the present.
Critical Assumptions and Enduring Elements of The Command of The Air
The scholar, Edward Warner, identified the main assumptions of The Command of The Air in his 1941 essay titled, “Douhet, Mitchell, Seversky: Theories of Air Warfare.” He determined that the major assumptions that underpin Douhet’s argument are, “Aircraft are instruments of offense of incompatible potentialities, against which no effective defense is foreseen;” and, “Civilian morale will be shattered by bombardment of centers of population.” These assumptions establish the foundation for the absolute superiority of the air domain over warfare conducted on the land and at sea. Unlike the other domains, airpower can shatter civilian morale, through the destruction of the logistical capacity to wage war, or by terrorizing population centers causing the civilian populace to force a political end to conflict. Beatrice Heuser likens the debate of choosing between these targets as an extension of the naval blockade that stopped supplies from reaching the front. According to Douhetism however, airpower’s unique capability alters the character of war and represents a new form of total war not even seen during the devastation of the First World War.
From this foundation, Warner identifies what he considers the five basic elements of Douhetism. These elements have enduring value for airpower strategists analyzing Douhet’s theories. First, Warner identifies Douhet’s belief that the air is the most important battle space. Warner then identifies Douhet’s dual concept of strategic bombing and total war. These two elements are inextricably linked as strategic bombardment changed the character of war by making it possible to attack the population and logistics centers behind the front lines on the battlefield and therefore engage the civilians in total war. Fourth, Warner argues that Douhet believes that military mechanization forces ground troops to take a defensive posture. Fifth, Warner’s last element of Douhetism is the supremacy of the bomber over all other aircraft. Warner’s five elements of Douhetism found in The Command of The Air are the product of Douhet’s career of advocating for the transformative capabilities of airpower and the superiority of the airplane.
Warner’s first element of Douhetism in The Command of The Air is that the air is the dominant domain of warfare. Warner cites Douhet in The Command of The Air as writing, “in order to assure an adequate national defense, it is necessary—and sufficient—to be in a position in case of war to conquer the command of the air.” Therefore, according to Douhet, a country’s entire security rests on its ability to command the air. However, if ensuring national security requires a nation take ‘command of the air,’ we must ask, what does Douhet mean by ‘command of the air’? Douhet provides a simple, yet absolute, definition. He writes, “to have command of the air means to be in a position to prevent the enemy from flying while retaining the ability to fly oneself.” According to Douhet, the air is the dominant domain of war because without absolute command of the air to conduct and protect one’s own country from an aerial offensive, national security cannot be ensured.
Douhet and his contemporaries used this first element of Douhetism to advocate for an independent air force. Douhet intensified his own argument for the superiority of the air domain over the land and sea during his military career. As early as 1909, Douhet gave equal importance to the three domains. He predicted then that “soon the command of the air will be no less important [than that of the seas] because only by having such command—and only then—can we make use of the advantages made possible by aerial observation and the ability to see targets clearly—advantages which we shall not be able fully to enjoy until we have the aerial power to keep the enemy grounded. The struggle for the command of the air will be bitter; and the so called civilized nations will strive to forge the most telling means to wage the conflict.” By 1927, Douhet had gone much further, advocating the primacy of the air domain over the land and sea by writing, “to conquer the command of the air means victory; to be beaten in the air means defeat and acceptance of whatever terms the enemy may be pleased to impose.” Airpower theorists have since argued to what extent airpower can independently attain victory over all other domains of warfare.
Douhet began advocating the independence of the air domain as soon as the superior technical capabilities of airplanes was evident. The argument for an independent air force in The Command of The Air naturally followed and his views became more extreme after 1921 when he faced criticism from the army and navy. The debate became, in Thomas Hippler’s words, between ‘war from the air’ as compared to ‘war in the air.’ In the second edition, published in 1927, Douhet had changed his thinking on the organization of the air forces, which originally envisioned equal components of “aerial means used by the army and navy,” and “aerial means destined to carry out war missions in which neither the army nor navy can take part.” He now believed that “aerial means set aside for auxiliary aviation are means diverted from the essential purpose” that are “worthless, superfluous and harmful.” This contention has become the source of inter-service rivalry between armies, navies, and independent air forces across the world.
Warner’s second and third elements of Douhetism, which address total war and strategic bombing, are possibly the most debated by historians. Douhet wrote that when evaluating strategic bombing targets, “the truth of the matter is that no hard and fast rules can be laid down on this aspect of aerial warfare. It is impossible even to outline general standards, because the choice of enemy targets will depend upon a number of circumstances, material, moral, and psychological, the importance of which, though real, is not easily estimated.” One widely accepted view on Douhet’s concepts of total war and strategic bombing, held by theorists including Warner and Gian P. Gentile, asserts that Douhet holds a nation’s industrial capacity and the enemy’s air force to be the primary targets of bombing missions. This is done, according to Douhet, because, “the essential purpose of an Air Force is to conquer the command of the air by first wiping out the enemy’s air forces.” Once this is accomplished, Douhet writes that bombing strategic targets, including rail roads, ports, and population centers, will quickly bring victory. Douhet summarizes his concept of total war by writing, “the fundamental concept governing aerial warfare is to be resigned to the damage the enemy may inflict upon us, while utilizing every means at our disposal to inflict even heavier damage upon him.”
Warner’s fourth element of Douhetism in The Command of The Air, that ground forces are to be delegated to defensive responsibilities, is the result of Douhet’s reaction to the destructive stalemate of the First World War. After witnessing the efficiency and devastation of machine guns, small-caliber arms, mortars, and the mechanization of systems of defense along Italy’s northern front with Austria, Douhet concluded that there had been an upheaval in the character of war which favored only the defensive on the ground. “Every development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive,” according Douhet. Still, Douhet acknowledged that victory in warfare is dependent on offensive action and attributes the destruction of the First World War to the failure of the combatants to strike a decisive blow. The airplane, Douhet believes is ‘the offensive weapon par excellence’ and that it was not properly utilized in the First World War. Douhet’s application of an aerial offensive to avoid the stalemate and bloody trench warfare of the First World War is but one attempt at altering the strategies that war employed to avoid a repeat of its outcome in the future.
Finally, Warner’s last element of Douhetism from The Command of The Air is that the bomber is superior to the fighter aircraft. Douhet’s preference for the bomber rests on his concept of strategic bombardment as the most effective form of aerial offense and his disdain for interdiction efforts by defending fighter aircraft. Therefore, the bomber is the superior airplane because it is capable of delivering the greatest payload of devastating bombs and toxic gas munitions upon the enemy’s industrial centers and cities. Douhet called the plane that delivers this payload the “battle plane.” He is clear on an air force’s need for such planes, stating, “we have been able to determine through deduction the characteristics a battle plane should have—the only type of plane which should make up the operating mass of an Independent Air Force—the only organism necessary, because sufficient in itself, to wage aerial warfare.” Meanwhile, on the ground below, Douhet observes that “nothing man can do on the surface of the earth can interfere with a plane in flight, moving freely in the third dimension.” Douhet’s battle plane concept was controversial and contributed to his court-martial for his independent support of the Caproni 300 bomber leading up to the First World War. Yet, like many of Douhet’s concepts it also found credence even if it was not entirely accepted. In the words of British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin speaking before Parliament in 1932, the fear that “the bomber will always get through” had become a reality before World War II.
Reaction to Douhetism and The Command of The Air
The theories of airpower Douhet synthesized in The Command of The Air began to slowly gain influence in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Either their geography in the case of the U.S. and U.K., or defensive mentality in the case of France, favored the long-range strike capabilities of airpower and appealed to their military leadership. In the U.K., the prevalence and appeal of the concepts of Douhetism, if not the direct influence of The Command of The Air, had already gained popularity from a contemporary of Douhet’s, Frederick Sykes, the Royal Air Force Chief of Staff, and later, Hugh Trenchard, who supported RAF long-range bombers in 1918. In the U.S. at the Army Air Corps Tactical School, Douhet’s influence had been felt since as early as 1923 when the first English translation of The Command of The Air appeared there. While the School throughout the period 1920-1935 was of course subject to various influences of an intellectual order, there was none so pervasive or significant as that of Douhet,” Flugel concludes. By 1928, elements of Douhetism such as strategic bombing, the overriding importance of offensive aerial operations, and even the superiority of Douhet’s “battle plane” concept had taken hold at the U.S. War Department, according to Flugel. Though it is debatable which of the early airpower theorists had the greatest influence it is clear that the concepts now known as Douhetism were prominent among the world’s militaries in the years prior to World War II.
Criticism of Douhet, just as the legacy of his influence, is extensive. Many prominent scholars of airpower, such as Bernard Brodie, J.F.C. Fuller, and Stefan Thomas Possony, have argued that World War II was a test of Douhet’s theories, and the results proved them invalid. Others, many of them officers of the Italian Air Force, take the opposing position and defend Douhet, believing his general principals to have been vindicated by the success of strategic bombing. Though the criticism of The Command of The Air is voluminous, in part because of Douhet’s definiteness, it is recognized as an essential text for the development of modern airpower theory because few deny that the concepts of Douhetism, especially strategic bombing, have some degree of influence on the character of war.
Among the criticisms of Douhet is his deficiency in appreciating aeronautical technology advancements in speed and radar for the purpose of air-to-air combat. Douhet’s rejection of the importance of speed is one of the most popular criticisms. On the topic of speed, Douhet wrote, “what determines victory in aerial warfare is fire power. Speed serves only to come to grips with the foe and to flee from him, no more.” Warner called Douhet’s failure to anticipate the importance of increased speed, “the worst of all of Douhet’s failures in dealing with technical development.” As an example, Brodie cited Germany’s loss in the 1940 Battle of Britain as an example of Douhet’s failure to appreciate the changes in aerial warfare resulting from improved speed and radar capabilities and thus the failure of Douhetism. Brodie criticizes Douhet’s rejection of the role of air defense and interdiction, and the important effect technology has had in expanding the role of the air force beyond Douhet’s focus on offensive strategic bombardment. Together with the advent of radar, the engine and aeronautical improvements that produced increasing difference in relative speed between fighters and bombers during World War II damaged Douhet’s presumption of the dominance of the aerial offensive.
The other significant criticism of Douhet’s concept of airpower strategy is the lack of attention and thought he devoted to tactical applications of airpower. In the bureaucratic inter-service rivalry from which Douhet wrestled control of the air force, tactical operations were relegated to ‘auxiliary’ responsibilities and Douhetism focused on the strategic applications of an independent air force. However, Douhet himself said with certainty that the application of airpower in the First World War provided no guidance whatsoever for the future. In John Olsen’s A History of Air Warfare,John H. Morrow Jr. reminds us of the danger of forgetting lessons of past wars. He writes, “theory and wishful thinking after the Great War focused on strategic aviation and nearly drove the lessons of tactical aerial importance and success from the minds of postwar observers. The more postwar aviation theorists speculated on the ability of strategic bombardment to force enemy capitulation by bombing cities, wrecking war industry and civilian morale, the less they seemed to remember the contributions of battlefield aviation.” Douhet, according to his critics, was certainly focused on strategic airpower to the detriment of developing theories for the application of aerial warfare to tactical operations. Critics point to the importance of close air support in the air campaign during the Vietnam War as examples of the strategic amnesia of Douhetism.
Possibly the most controversial of Douhet’s concepts that continues to attract scrutiny is strategic bombardment. The debate most often centers on the issue of proving the effectiveness of strategic bombing. On one side, scholars such as J.F.C. Fuller and Gian P. Gentile call strategic bombardment ineffective and take issue with post-war evaluations of its success. “As an experiment, the strategic bombing of Germany up to the spring of 1944 was an extravagant failure. Instead of shortening the war, its cost in raw materials and industrial manpower prolonged it,” writes Fuller. This then introduces the question of morality as a second ground upon which critics take issue. Douhet advocated strategic bombardment against civilians on the basis that it will reduce overall suffering, but by questioning the effectiveness of that bombing, its morality is also questioned. However, post-war studies such as the United States Strategic Bombing Survey conducted after World War II, which evaluated the effectiveness of strategic bombing, found that it was indeed successful in bringing the war to a quicker end.
Today airplanes equipped with Precision Guided Missiles (PGMs) have ushered in a new era of strategic bombardment that once again seems to offer the promise of altering the character of war. The ability to accurately target the leadership of opposing forces led to the popularity of Col. John A. Warden’s concept of Warden’s Rings that placed leadership as the primary target of conventional, targeted strikes during the first Gulf War of 1990-1991. The re-ascendance of Douhet’s concepts of strategic bombing, as a result of advances in technology, was noted in the Summary Report of the Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS), written by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen. It reports that the 1990-1991 Gulf War is seen by some as “evidence that technology has finally enabled airmen to fulfill the expectations” of “air proponents such as Guilio Douhet and Billy Mitchell” that “described the things that air power could achieve in theory, but until the Gulf War, air forces lacked the ‘tools and systems capable of achieving them’ in practice.” (The authors of the GWAPS report did not endorse that conclusion.) The morality and effectiveness of strategic bombardment, which Douhet helped introduce to airpower theorists, remains a part of our strategic debate today in the discussion of the use of PGMs and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the war against global terrorism.
Douhet’s Contribution to Airpower
The Command of The Air has had enduring influence on airpower and strategy. Ever since its popularity took hold, the concepts of his theory of airpower strategy, known as Douhetism, have been the starting point for debate on military air operations. Though not the first nor only text to recognize the consequences that the airplane would might on the character of warfare, The Command of The Air is an indisputable classic of military strategy because of Douhet’s systematic and forceful argument. In a measure of Douhet’s recognition, U.S Air Force Historian, Dr. Richard P. Hallion wrote of Douhet, “in the pantheon of air power spokesman, Giulio Douhet holds center stage.” Douhet’s classic, published in 1921, has remained a source of modern strategy that has transcended any reaction to the devastation of the First World War that Douhetism originally sought to overcome, to remain a guiding document for strategists of warfare’s third dimension, the air.
(Web, Google, Wikipedia, classicsofstrategy, You Tube)
