In today’s modern conflicts air power has proven to be a major contributing factor towards success.Whether the conflict is of regular or irregular nature, air power has many positive attributes that canplay a crucial role in the result of the battle. However there are cases where air superiority wasachieved but the outcome of the conflict didn’t result in success. Which indicates that air power isn’talways the key to success. To examine this further it is necessary to test an air theory on two separatecases that are similar but different in one aspect, the outcome. The theory that is used to examinethe two cases is Robert Pape´s theory “Coercive by denial”, because this theory has been criticizedthat it does not function on modern and irregular conflicts. The purpose of this thesis is to implement Pape´s air theory “Coercive by denial” to see if this theorycan explain the differences in the outcome between the two battles of Fallujah in Iraq 2004 by usinga comparative case study. Although air superiority was achieved in both battles the first is considereda failure, the second a success. The results of the research show that the theory cannot explain why the second battle was successfuland the first one was a failure. The result shows that Pape´s statement about what to target first inan irregular conflict to have the highest effect against insurgents isn’t always right. The result showsthat the second battle was more focused on attacking the enemy’s logistics then the first battle. Thatcould be a reason why the second battle was a success but it is against Pape´s own statement in histheory. The main conclusion of the thesis is that “Coercive by denial” cannot explain the variationin the outcome of the battles of Fallujah, and Pape´s theory can be questioned. This indicates thenecessity of further studies on Pape’s theory on irregular conflicts

Robert A. Pape, an American political scientist, have created a universally known theory about how to successfully conduct military coercion. In his comprehensive quantitative research from multiple cases of coercion Pape’s conclusion is that the denial strategy of air power is what historically have been working. From his cases where he draws his conclusion there is one case missing. Pape has excluded the case of the Falklands war. According to some researchers, the Falklands war which was won by Great Britain, had a successful outcome due to their utility of the air power. This essay aims to test if Papes theory of military coercion has the potential to explain the victory of Great Britain in the Falklands War. By conducting a single case study by means of a qualitative text analysis, the answer is to be found. The results shows that Great Britain mainly used a denial strategy with the air powers. The Falklands war could have been predicted by this usage. Although it is a conventional conflict, involving both the navy, army and the airforce, it is hard to believe it was only because of the air powers the war was won. The use of a denial strategy can therefore not explain the victory for Great Britain, but it can be a part of the explanation. / <p><strong>Uppsatsen skriven VT 2017 under Termin 4 Officersprogrammet 15-18 med inriktning</strong><strong>mot flyg. Examen genomförs VT 2018.  </strong></p>

Airpower theorists through history have by one or another reason chosen not to use wars or conflicts between India and Pakistan. Both the war 1965 and 1971 had the use of airpower, especially the war 1971 where India was victorious. This study examines India’s use of airpower against Pakistan in the war of 1971. The theories that are chosen for the examination is coming from the airpower theorist Robert Pape. Pape presents four different coercion air strategies, by them ‘coercion by denial’ and ‘coercion by decapitation’ are chosen for this study.    The purpose of this study was to give more explanation and understanding of the war between India and Pakistan in 1971 and more closely India’s use of airpower. Because of the lack of airpower studies between the countries mentioned above, this study will also give some insight into why previous airpower theorists may have chosen to look past wars between India and Pakistan.    The results show that Pape’s different theories gave a good overall explanation of India’s use of airpower in the war of 1971. This study also indicates and points a direction to which airpower theory is most likely to explain India’s use of airpower. It also gives some possible alternatives to why previous airpower theorists chose not to study the Indo-Pakistani war in 1971.

Framträdande luftmaktsteorier förefaller i regel vara skrivna av stormaktsföreträdare. Ett implicit antagande att dessa teorier förutsätter betydande militär kapacitet och sofistikerad teknologi gör att de uppfattas som ”stormaktsteorier” som likt en klubba slår hårt mot motståndaren, med begränsad relevans för mindre stater som saknar stormakternas omfattande resurser. Luftmakt finns dock också i länder som kan betraktas som småstater. Även småstater kan – teoretiskt – antingen enskilt eller i en småstatsallians genom välriktade nålstick också skapa strategisk effekt med befintliga resurser.   Denna studie utmanar antagandet att luftmaktsteorier kan betraktas som antingen stormakts- eller småstatsteorier. Genom att pröva Robert Papes luftmaktsteori och Shaun Clarkes SPOT-paradigm i såväl stormakts- som småstatsperspektivet på ett gemensamt fall, Georgienkriget 2008 mellan Ryssland och Georgien, skapas ny kunskap om förklaringskraften hos respektive teori. Studien visar att Papes luftmaktsteori kan förklara stormakters användning av luftmakt, men belägg saknas för att den också kan förklara småstaters luftmaktsanvändning. Vidare saknas belägg för att Clarkes SPOT-paradigm kan förklara vare sig småstaters eller stormakters användande av luftmakt i det aktuella fallet. Däremot visar analysen att SPOT-paradigmet förutsätter ett visst mått av kvantitet och kvalitet, även hos småstater, för att omsättas i en skarp operation. Då ett mått på detta inte ges, bör SPOT-paradigmet främst betraktas som ett förhållningssätt till hur strategisk effekt kan skapas med tillgängliga resurser.

The use of air power has become more important in modern warfare, and the ability to use the full potential of air power is significant for a beneficial outcome of conflict. Today’s most established air power theories are developed from a military superpower perspective, leaving a void of knowledge for the smaller air forces. This study intends to find out how the air power advocate Robert Pape’s theory theater air power is applicable to small states and small air forces by testing Pape’s theory against the Six Day War in 1967 and the Georgia War in 2008 and thus contribute to a greater basis for the debate on how the air forces should be used and which role they play in conflict. The result show, in contrast to Pape’s theory, that air superiority is beneficial but not decisive. Instead, the coordination between arms is crucial for high combat efficiency and utilization of airspace. Also, the result shows that operational interdiction is the most efficient course of action for small state to use their air power, particularly if lacking the ability to defeat heavily armoured combat vehicles and battle tanks. Finally, the result clarifies that the air power cannot win conflicts by their own but are a vital contributor to the favourable outcome of conflict.

In 2011, a coalition of member states in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization together with partner nations outside of the alliance cooperated against the Libyan regime led by Colonel Muammar Khadaffi. The primary goals of the operations in Libya were to protect the civil population from attacks by the Libyan regime, maintain the no-flyzone and arms embargo. The operations in Libya proved to be successful and many authors claims that airpower were the main key to the victory.John A. Warden III and Robert A. Pape have been mentioned in discussions about airpower and there have also been a debate regarding which theory that best describes how air power should be used. Some authors who have examined the Libyan war claims that the outcome can be understood with John Wardens theories while other claims that it can be understood from Robert Papes theories.This study aims to examine and try to understand the outcome of the air campaign in Libya 2011. Based on the accomplishment of air power in the Libyan civil war along with the debate between John Warden and Robert Pape the conclusion of this study is that the success in the war can be identified in both theories. John Warden’s theory about strategic airpower together with Robert Pape’s theory about direct support of ground forces seems to be the key factor that ended the war with a successful outcome.

The Falklands War is well studied but there are currently no theoretically based analyzes specifically aimed at explaining Operation Black Buck, a long-range bombing of Argentine targets on the Falklands with strategic bombers, despite its controversial and unique nature. By illustrating the case on the basis of a theory-consuming approach, this study examines the purpose of the operation in an effort to understand why the British Air Force justified the missions despite the great challenges.  The theoretical framework for this study is seen through the eyes of the most prominent theorists in modern air power debate; John Warden and Robert Pape. The important aspect in this study is not the authors disagreements but rather that their theories can be seen as complementary to each other in understanding this case.  The study shows that the purpose of Operation Black Buck was aimed at denying the Argentines the opportunity to use the airport at Stanley for military purposes. In addition, there was a deterrent value that indirectly gave a strategic effect by deploying strategic bombers to demonstrate will, determination and hint at the ability to strike the Argentine mainland. The driving force behind the operation was the British effort in trying to achieve air superiority which was a critical objective during the war.