At its heart, air power leverages height, speed, and reach to create effects across the operational spectrum.
While the UK publishes ‘bite-sized’ guides to its Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 0-30, the keystone document on air power, we aim to explain its essence in more straightforward terms. While JDP 0-01, UK Defence Doctrine, outlines the broad principles and philosophies underpinning the use of the Armed Forces, JDP 0-30 focuses specifically on air power and its unique capabilities. Let’s explore it!
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The Core Roles of Air Power
Air power revolves around four core roles, each essential to achieving strategic and tactical objectives:
- Control of the Air
Securing dominance in the air is the foundation of all operations, ensuring freedom of action for friendly forces while limiting or denying the adversary’s use of the air domain. Without control of the air, maritime and land operations are far more vulnerable to attack. - Attack
Air power provides the ability to deliver precision strikes, often with overwhelming force, to influence adversaries and shape events. This role covers a wide range of operations, from strategic bombing to close air support for troops on the ground. - Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
Modern aircraft equipped with advanced sensors provide rapid and extensive intelligence-gathering capabilities. This helps decision-makers anticipate threats, understand the battlespace, and execute well-informed strategies. - Air Mobility
The ability to move personnel, equipment, and supplies quickly over long distances is indispensable. Air mobility ensures that operations are sustained and forces are deployed or recovered efficiently, even in austere or contested environments.
Why Air Power is Unique
Air power’s unique ability to exploit height, speed, and reach allows it to operate beyond traditional barriers. Aircraft can traverse borders, bypass terrain obstacles, and reach remote or heavily defended locations with precision. Its global nature ensures access to any point on Earth, providing policymakers with an agile and timely tool for responding to crises.
According to the doctrine paper:
“The basis of air power is its exploitation of height, speed, and reach within the air environment, which facilitates the four core roles of air power: control of the air; attack; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); and air mobility. Control of the air underpins all air operations because it secures freedom of action in the air domain, while limiting or denying its use by an adversary. The use of overwhelming force through an attack from the air lies at the heart of the ability of air power to influence the behaviour of actors and the course of events.
The speed of aircraft enables highly responsive ISR solutions; their reach gives them the ability to fly long distances and cover vast areas, collecting information from a variety of sensors. Air mobility provides the ability to deploy, sustain and recover personnel and equipment quickly, often over significant distance. Modern, multi-role aircraft afford a significant degree of simultaneity, whereby a single aircraft can perform more than one role during the same mission.
Command and control envelopes all four air power roles and it is essential for the effective delivery of air power. Centralised control and decentralised execution is the UK’s preferred method for air command and control as it enables tactical flexibility whilst ensuring unity of effort at the operational level. Air operations are best delivered under the command of a single air commander, the joint force air component commander.”
Effective command and control are essential for maximising air power’s potential. The UK employs a “centralised control, decentralised execution” model, which enables tactical flexibility while maintaining strategic oversight. Air operations are typically directed by a single air commander through tailored command systems such as the RAF’s 11 Group or the deployable UK Joint Force Air Component Headquarters.
Integration Across Domains
Air power does not operate in isolation. It works most effectively when integrated with land, maritime, space, and cyber capabilities. This cross-domain synergy ensures that the Armed Forces can deliver coordinated and decisive outcomes.
International cooperation is also vital. The UK’s interoperability with NATO allies allows for the pooling of resources, such as aircraft from multiple nations working together under a shared air tasking cycle. This ensures that air power can be applied with precision and efficiency at the operational and tactical levels.
A Keystone Capability
Air power is a cornerstone of the UK’s ability to project influence and respond to global challenges. Whether securing airspace, launching precision strikes, or providing humanitarian relief, it ensures that Britain remains a key player on the world stage.
Through its unmatched combination of speed, reach, and versatility, air power continues to be a vital, important and equally load bearing cog keeping us safe.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
I agree, AirPower should very much be the UK’s focus in Europe. European army’s are quite large and have a lot of artillery but eur9pes heavily relies on the US for AirPower. Given the US is now likely to move to a longer term isolationist position as it’s people are clearly rejecting the FDR post 1945 world it’s important for the UK to look at what US contributions it can replace.
Air power as well as nuclear weapons and space based assets should be our principal focus for areas of uplift.
Agree. And the RN.
Has there been any final decision on upgrading the remaining T1 Typhoons ? If they still have a longish life left wouldn’t be a sensible? quicker and affordable than getting completely new aircraft and even more F35Bs in the interim? And if you can’t increase aircraft numbers are there any studies being done to increase the missile loads for Typhoons and F35Bs? An extra 2+ each would be quite an uptake? Like the US has done it with their F15.
It was decided to retire them.
BAe said they could upgrade them but MoD weren’t engaging.
I’m not too sure how many of them were flyable by the end anyway as my sense was that ever reducing numbers were in service and others were stripped in a reduce to produce manner.
I have heard that there are certain personalities within the RAF, who have decided that the F35 is to be the main focus until FCAS comes into service. Unless the RAF start lobbying for new Typhoons. I can see more acquisitions of the F35 taking precedence.
In some extent I can see the logic, as the F35 has stealth on its side, so can either get closer to targets without being seen or have a greater chance of launching weapons without being seen. The Typhoon doesn’t have stealth so it and the pilot have to take on more risk dealing with threats or targets.
The main issue is the paucity of U.K. weapons on the F35 and the unlikely events that our weapons will get a higher priority for integration when Block 4 comes along. Whereas with Typhoon we don’t have that problem. So in that context getting more Typhoons would be of greater benefit to the U.K.
*sensible, quicker
Something that concerns me is the ability of the US to veto our use of Storm Shadow because of American data/components. Should we be aiming to produce weapons systems that we can use when WE choose to? It’s possible my level of knowledge on the topic is insufficient but given the political movement in the US it worries me that we seem to have to ask the US for permission for SS to be used in Ukraine. Does this apply to other aerial assets?
The raf is the problem and it should have been dissolved after it’s 100 year experiment was over.
We need to fold everything into the navy again and sort all the services as one service like the USMC.
They have been the biggest waste of money and too many projects have failed or just not been for for purpose
I just want to applaud the 100 year experiment maxim.
I don’t see air power as unique, it’s one domain in which we need to generate dominance. But that needs to be under a combined campaign plan, combined HQ etc.
The only issue with the USMC model is that their tasks don’t include tasks taken by the USN and USAF namely control of the air. So we’d have to work out how that happens, but under mission command it shouldn’t be hard.
So in summary, I don’t view capabilities separately. We should view military capability as one big system that works together to achieve strategic and operational aims through tactical actions.
Air power is not unique
The RN is a clown show, you can’t even man the few boats you have left. They spend more time swapping paint with the dock wall than bobbing about not helping in the last 3? wars.