Category: Air Power History

Air Vice-Marshal Professor R.A. ‘Tony’ Mason – A Reflection

Air Vice-Marshal Professor R.A. ‘Tony’ Mason – A Reflection

By Dr Ross Mahoney

Editorial note: This piece was originally drafted not long after the passing of Air Vice-Marshal Mason. However, several personal reasons led to a delay in its publication. 

On 12 November 2023, Air Vice-Marshal Professor R.A. Mason, one of the doyens of air power studies, sadly passed away. Known as Tony by most who knew him personally and professionally, Mason can be considered one of the fathers of air power studies in the UK. As I have argued elsewhere, Mason was arguably the critical British air power thinker of the late 20th Century. From being the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) first Director of Defence Studies (DDefS) to his writing and commentary work, Mason was consistently at the forefront of the field until the 2010s. Indeed, his consistent commitment to the field and the length of his career made him stand out. He was also generous with his time and knowledge and always happy to share material with those who shared his interests.

Mason joined the RAF in 1956 and entered the Education Branch. He gradually rose through the ranks in his branch and undertook various assignments, including attending King’s College London, the United States Air War College and the RAF Staff College. Eventually, in 1976, Mason was informed that he would be the RAF’s first DDefS. Mason took up the role at the start of 1977. The position of DDefS was established due to the perceived state of thinking on air power within the RAF and public awareness of the Service’s role. In a letter to Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Support Command, Air Marshal Sir Reginald Harland, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neil Cameron noted that the position was being established ‘to help provide a new stimulus to air power thinking’ throughout the RAF.[1] This point was also emphasised in the terms of reference for the DDefS post, as there was a need to ‘write on air power and defence issues,’ which was to be encouraged.[2]

The establishment of the post of DDefS at the RAF Staff College at Bracknell and Mason’s perceived suitability for the role caused some debate. While this is not the place to consider that debate, the view of Mason’s successor, Group Captain Timothy Garden, is worth noting. Garden, a pilot and later Air Marshal Baron Garden, noted in 1982 in Air Clues that a colleague had questioned why he would want to take over what was perceived by 1982 as an ‘admin branch’ role. Garden reflected that the most appropriately qualified person should essentially hold the post to achieve its aims and that it ‘should not be the prerogative of any branch.’[3] That Garden, as a pilot, viewed the post in such a way was as much down to Mason’s hard work in the role as it was to the importance of the RAF’s intellectual development.

0001

Mason nonetheless quickly sought to encourage discussion and debate and discussion about the role of air power within the service on taking up the role of DDefS. Despite the demise of the RAF Quarterly in 1977, Mason regularly contributed to Air Clues, which, up to the 1970s, had primarily been a technical publication for the RAF. In 1980, he established the Air Power Supplement to Air Clues, the spiritual ancestor to the RAF’s current professional flagship journal, Air and Space Power Review.[4] He also regularly contributed to other publications, such as The RUSI Journal. Perhaps his critical success in this period was organising an academic symposium in his first year in post. This symposium was entitled ‘Air Power in the Next Generation.’ It was well attended and laid the basis for similar endeavours by his successors. It was also published as Air Power in the Next Generation, co-edited with Edgar Feuchtwanger and published by The Macmillan Press in 1979. The book included contributions from the senior USAF, Luftwaffe, and Israeli officers, as well as civilian academics such as John Erickson. Much of Mason’s work started a process whereby his successors have continued to contribute to the collegiate intellectual development of the RAF through various schemes such as publications, conferences, and the management of defence fellowships.[5] Many former post-holders, such as Air Commodore (ret’d) Professor Peter Gray, are also notable for their contribution to developing British air power thinking through their engagement with academia after leaving the post of DDefS and the RAF.

978-1-349-17964-0

Mason’s contributions to air power studies continued after moving on from the DDefS role. In 1983, Mason published Air Power in the Nuclear Age in conjunction with Air Marshal Michael Armitage. This publication helped cement Mason’s position as a leading air power thinker. As Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Cameron noted in the foreword to the book, ‘[t]he joint authors of this book are advanced and enlightened thinkers about the doctrine of air power as a vital and perhaps the most important element of modern and future warfare.’[6] This view was not hyperbole. For example, in his 1984 overview of air power literature, historian Richard Hallion described the book as an ‘excellent survey’ of the development of air power during the Cold War.[7] The book was updated as a second edition in 1985. Mason’s other notable works in this period were the edited book War in the Third Dimension and the establishment of the Brassey’s Air Power: Aircraft, Weapons Systems and Technology Series. This latter series was interesting because it was explicitly directed at developing an awareness of air power amongst junior military personnel.

After retiring from the RAF in 1989, Mason moved into academia. He became the Leverhulme Air Power Research Director for the Foundation for International Security and took up a post as a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Studies in Security and Diplomacy at the University of Birmingham, where he was director. In 1996, he was made an Honorary Professor of Aerospace Policy at the University of Birmingham.

414K44MP5EL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_

In 1994, Mason published what might be considered his magnum opus, Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal. This book confirmed Mason’s place as one of Britain’s leading air power thinkers. In this book, Mason examined the development of air power between 1989 and 1994. In doing so, he took a historical approach to examine how air power developed in the years up to this period. Mason then conceptualised the period 1989 to 1994, focusing on several key themes, such as the place of air power in arms control. Notably, he sought to contextualise much of the then-contemporary debate about the role of air power in the First Gulf War. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the book lay in Mason’s conceptualisation of what he called ‘differential air power.’[8] In short, Mason argued that while many nations shared ideas around the implementation of air power, only one in 1994 might be able to fully apply the advantages afforded by air power – the US. Using the idea of differential air power, Mason explored why the US stood out as a unique user of air power capabilities. These were important views for the time; however, while the book remains a significant contribution to air power studies, given factors such as the rise of China in the 21st Century and the distributed use of off-the-shelf technology such as drones, it remains to be seen whether his view remains applicable. Nevertheless, Mason concluded that:

One enduring concept underlay all air power thinking and all operations from the first day of the century to the last, and will continue to do so. Any nation intent on going to war to pursue an interest or defend a principle must first secure the air above it.[9]

Mason’s book was well received at publication and has become a commonly cited work. In his 1995 review in The RUSI Journal, Garden described the book as ‘excellent [and] thought-provoking.’[10] Thomas Keaney, who had worked on the Gulf War Air Power Survey, noted that the book made an ‘important contribution to any discussion on the future of airpower in the United States or elsewhere’ in a 1996 review for the US Joint Forces Quarterly.[11] However, historian Philip Sabin, reviewing the book in the Journal of Strategic Studies in 1995, offered a more tempered view. While recognising that the book had certain strengths, particularly Mason’s ‘balanced insights into many of the controversial issues regarding air power,’ Sabin also highlighted the challenge of reading a book that was ‘dense and difficult to follow without careful reading.’[12]

After the publication of Air Power, Mason continued to contribute to both the public’s and the RAF’s understanding of air power through his continued contribution to publications.[13] He also served as an expert member of the House of Commons Defence Committee in the early 2000s and helped inform British defence policy. He was also an inveterate media commentator and was often called to provide expert opinion. Mason’s contribution to air power studies was wide-ranging. While he had retired several years before his passing, his expertise will undoubtedly be sorely missed by many air power scholars for decades to come.

Dr Ross Mahoney is an independent scholar specialising in the history of war with particular reference to the use of air power and the history of air warfare. He is currently the Senior Historian within the Heritage Policy team at Brisbane City Council in Australia. He has nearly 20 years of experience in the education, museum and heritage sectors in Australia and the United Kingdom. Between 2013 and 2017, he was the inaugural Historian at the Royal Air Force Museum in the UK. In Australia, he has worked as a Historian for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and taught at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at The Australian National University based at the Australian War College. His research interests are focused on the history of war, specifically on the history of air power and air warfare, military leadership and command, military culture, and the history and development of professional military education. He also maintains an interest in transport history. He has published numerous articles, chapters and encyclopedia entries, edited two books, and delivered papers on three continents. His website is here, and he can be found on Twitter at @airpowerhistory.

Header image: Ramslade House, the home of the RAF Staff College in Bracknell when Mason took up the role of Director of Defence Studies. (Source: Wikimedia)

[1] Author’s Personal Collection, Letter from the Chief of the Air Staff to AOC-in-C Support Command, 2 November 1976. I am grateful to the late Air Vice-Marshal Professor R.A. Mason for a copy of this and other documents linked to the establishment of the DDefS post.

[2] Author’s Personal Collection, Terms of Reference for Director of Defence Studies appended to a Letter from the Chief of the Air Staff to AOC-in-C Support Command, 2 November 1976, p. 1.

[3] Group Captain Timothy Garden, ‘Why don’t we forget Defence Studies and get on with the job?’ Air Clues 36, no 10 (1982), p. 364.

[4] Air Vice-Marshal Tony Mason, ‘Air Power Review’s Place in RAF History,’ Air Power Review 21, no. 1 (2018), p. 10.

[5] For a variety of publications produced under the guidance of DDefS, see: Andrew Lambert and Arthur C. Williamson (eds.), The Dynamics of Air Power (London: HMSO, 1996); Stuart Peach (ed.), Perspectives on Air Power: Air Power in its Wider Context (London: The Stationary Office: 1998); Peter W. Gray (ed.), Air Power 21: Challenges for the New Century (London: The Stationary Office, 2000); Peter W. Gray and Sebastian Cox (eds.), Air Power Leadership: Theory and Practice (London: The Stationary Office, 2002).

[6] Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Cameron, ‘Foreword’ in M’J’ Armitage and R.A. Mason, Air Power in the Nuclear Age: Theory and Practice, Second Edition (Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press, 1985), p. vii.

[7] Richard Hallion, The Literature of Aeronautics, Astronautics, and Air Power (Washington DC: Office of Air Force History, 1984), p. 36.

[8] Tony Mason, Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal (London: Brassey’s, 1994), pp. 235-278.

[9] Mason, Air Power, p. 278.

[10] Timothy Garden, ‘Book Reviews – Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal,’ The RUSI Journal 140, no. 3 (1995), p. 60.

[11] Thomas Keaney, ‘A Jubilee for Airmen: A Book Review,’ Joint Forces Quarterly 11 (1996), p. 134

[12] Philip Sabin, ‘Book Review – Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal,’ Journal of Strategic Studies 18, no. 4 (1995), pp. 141-2.

[13] For example, see: Tony Mason, ‘British Air Power’ in John Andreas Olsen (ed.), Global Air Power (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2011), 7-62; R.A. Mason, ‘The Response to Uncertainty’ in John Andreas Olsen (ed.), European Air Power: Challenges and Opportunities (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2014), pp. 215-30; Mason, ‘Air Power Review’s Place in RAF History,’ pp. 10-1.

#1944Revisited – Locating Japanese Radars: The First Dedicated Radar Countermeasures Units in the US Navy

#1944Revisited – Locating Japanese Radars: The First Dedicated Radar Countermeasures Units in the US Navy

By Thomas Wildenberg

Editor’s note: In 2024, From Balloons to Drones will publish a series of articles that seek to provide a new perspective on the air war in 1944. If you are interested in contributing, please see our call for submissions here.

The US Navy was unprepared for electronic warfare when the Second World War started. After the US Marines landed on Guadalcanal in August 1942, they were surprised to discover the presence of a Japanese early warning radar, something the US Navy was unaware of. Although several radar countermeasures (primarily radar receivers designed to detect enemy radars) were quickly devised by the Naval Research Laboratory, little or no provision was made for installing the gear in the US Navy’s aeroplanes. It was done on an ad hoc basis. It took two years of trial and error before the US Navy realised that to conduct radar countermeasures (RCM) effectively, it needed aeroplanes specifically outfitted for this purpose with crews that were trained in the use of the latest equipment. This article explores that experience of learning. Once this was achieved, the US Navy could locate and plot the enemy’s early warning radars. This enabled attacking aeroplanes to avoid them, thus reducing the likelihood of their interception from Japanese fighters. Though the equipment supplied to these aeroplanes was never intended for use in air-to-air encounters (radar-equipped night fighters had their own specialised equipment), the well-equipped, well-trained crews of the RCM Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberators that began arriving in the Pacific towards the end of 1944 discovered that they could use their RCM receivers to guide them to enemy aeroplanes also equipped with radar allowing it to be intercepted and shot down.[1]

Consolidated_PB4Y-1_Liberator_takes_off_from_Eniwetok_Airfield_on_16_April_1944_(80-G-K-1690)
A US Navy Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator patrol bomber taking off from Eniwetok Airfield (Stickell Field), 16 April 1944. (Source: Wikimedia)

VP-104 and Learning Lessons

In the spring of 1943, Lieutenant Lawrence Heron, one of several newly trained naval officers in the use and maintenance of the ARC-1 radar receiver (the primary RCM equipment available at that time), was sent to Guadalcanal and assigned to join VP-104 operating PB4Y-1 Liberators out of Carney Field (also known as Bomber 2). When Heron arrived in Guadalcanal, none of the PB4Y-1s were equipped with any RCM equipment. He had to figure out how to install the only radar receiver to transfer it from aeroplane to aeroplane. He solved this problem by mounting the ARC-1 receiver (the US Navy version of the US Army SCR-587) and its power supply on pieces of sawn plywood sized to fit through the aeroplane hatches. These were fastened to a table in the aeroplane interior, and a power cable was connected to the electric power system. He flew twenty missions to such places as Truk, Kapingamarangi in the Caroline Islands, and Rabaul – the latter particularly harrowing as it was so heavily defended.[2]

Forming Field Unit No. 3

By April 1944, it was clear to the leadership in the Southwest Pacific Command that permanently modified aeroplanes, such as the US Army Air Force’s Ferrets (modified aeroplanes such as the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and Consolidated B-24 Liberator) flown by crews to intercept radar signals, were far more effective in finding enemy radars than the makeshift radar receiver installations on US Navy bomber and reconnaissance aeroplanes operated by ‘gypsy’ crewman like Heron and his predecessors in Cast Mike 1 (the first US Navy RCM unit deployed to the Pacific Theatre in September 1942). Recognising this shortcoming, the Command’s headquarters was directed to form a dedicated airborne US Navy RCM unit. Lieutenant Heron was sent to the seaplane base at Palm Island near Townsville, Australia, with orders to establish and command Field Unit No. 3, a US Navy RCM unit using two PBYs specifically modified for this purpose.[3]

After arriving in Palm Island, Heron had no difficulty installing the ARC-1 receivers, but no direction-finding antennae were available. He solved the problem by having his men make their own from aluminium tubing. They melted the insulation from spare coaxial for the mount, machining it after it had hardened. The rotating antenna was mounted in the bottom of the flying boat’s fuselage behind the rear tunnel gun hatch and had to be attached after the aeroplane was airborne. As Heron recalled:

I would go back to the tunnel hatch of the aircraft – I wouldn’t ask an enlisted man to do it – and put on a safety belt fastened with a steel cable to the frame of the aircraft, then, with one of the enlisted men holding my feet, I would hang out the bottom of the airplane and fasten the antenna with wing nuts on the bottom of the fuselage. There were lots of occasions when I dropped wing nuts into the water 700 or 1,000 feet below. It wasn’t very pleasant […] Once the antenna was in place, somebody had to sit over the open tunnel hatch and operate the handle which rotated the dipole, using the interphone to coordinate with the RCM operator to get bearing information.[4]

When the modifications to Heron’s PBYs were complete, he took the unit to New Guinea and began flying RCM missions from seaplane bases at Port Moresby and the Samarai Islands. Although the jury-rigged direction-finding antenna gave satisfactory results, installing it was an extremely hazardous operation. During one flight, Heron’s aeroplane came under friendly ground fire. As the pilot maneuvered wildly to avoid being hit, Heron was thrown out of the hatch and back again several times. “If it hadn’t been for the steel safety cable,” he said, “I would probably be somewhere at the bottom of the ocean.”[5]

As the US Navy’s island-hopping campaign advanced toward Japan, RCM operations (today called electronic intelligence or ELINT) were organised from newly established bases on the captured islands. When Enewetak Atoll was secured on 20 February 1944, control of the Marshall Islands, which had been in Japanese hands since 1914, passed to the United States. Within a week, engineers from the US Army’s 110th Battalion were hard at work constructing a bomber airstrip, later named Stickel Field. When completed in March, it had a 400-foot-wide, 6,800-foot-long runway with two taxiways, facilities for major engine overhaul, and Quonset huts for housing personnel.

VPB-116 and Operations in the South Pacific

On 7 July 1944, PB4Y-1 Liberators of VPB-116, under the command of Commander Donald G. Gumz, began arriving on Enewetak. At least three of the planes in the squadron were equipped with specialised radar receivers and search radar. However, they were not equipped with the new APR-5 receiver, which would have greatly simplified the task of locating enemy radars. The squadron commenced operational patrols and sector searches on 12 July and was conducting missions against Truk, Japan’s main naval base in the South Pacific, by the first week in August. By then, the US Navy was aware of the shore-based air-search radars the Imperial Japanese Navy deployed. It had developed techniques for locating them with RCM aeroplanes to minimise their effectiveness. Although Truk had been pounded in February, its airfields continued to be a threat to US forces in the area, so bombings of the atoll continued. To ensure the attacking forces’ safety, the US Navy air force commander in the forward area asked Gumz to attempt to pinpoint the location of the Japanese radar equipment on Truk. Unbeknownst to Gumz or the higher authorities in the US Navy, there were no less than nine enemy air-search radars installed at various locations around the atoll.[6]

Gumz quickly discovered that getting a bearing on the Japanese radar transmissions operating below or just above the 100 MHz minimum range of the ARC-1 receiver was very difficult. To locate the radars, Gumz produced a plan to search for holes in the enemy’s radar screen using three RCM planes simultaneously running concentric circles around Truk lagoon at different altitudes. It took six-night sorties and a low-level morning strike on shipping to locate the radar source on Moen Island and the radar shadows created by certain islands. The information gained during this and other ELINT flights in the area allowed for follow-on raids to be planned so that the Japanese radars would provide minimum warning of the attacking forces’ approach.

An Air-to-Air Engagement

On 1 November 1944, one of the most remarkable air-to-air engagements of the Second World War occurred between an RCM PB4Y-1 under the command of Lieutenant Guy Thompson and a Japanese Kawanishi H8K Emily flying boat. It was also the first time in the history of electronic warfare that ELINT was used to locate and identify an enemy aeroplane so that it could be engaged and shot down by the sensing aeroplane.

Thompson took off that morning from Stickel Field on a mission to escort the submarine USS Salmon (SS-182), which could not submerge after severe damage and was making its way to Saipan. Tompson’s PB4Y-1 was equipped with an APS-15 search radar, which replaced the bottom gun turret, and the newest radar receivers and analysers, including the APR-5 radar receiver that picked up signals in the S-band used by search and early warning radars. On the way to the estimated location of the Salmon, at approximately 1100 hours, Aviation Chief Radio Technician W.T. Kane, monitoring the RCM gear, intercepted an enemy radar transmission that he estimated to be 75 to 90 miles away. The signal received on his instruments indicated that the emissions were not coming from a rotating antenna, as used in ground-based early warning radars, indicating that it was coming from another aeroplane.[7]

As the PB4Y-1 headed towards the emission source, Aviation Chief Radioman E.F. Bryant, operating the APS-15 radar, began searching for the enemy aeroplane. Thirty minutes after the initial contact, the radar screen revealed a contact nine-and-a-half miles distant at 1:30 o’clock low. As Bryant reported the contact, another crew member called out a visual sighting. Thompson let the Japanese plane pass to starboard before initiating a 180-degree turn to come in behind the flying boat, nosed over into a glide to pick up speed, and began closing the gap to the enemy plane below him. To catch the enemy plane, which had picked up speed, “Thompson put on more power and went into a steeper dive, building his sped up to 299 mph and closing to a point 2,000 feet behind and 500 feet above the Emily.” Thompson’s bow turret gunner immediately opened fire, initiating a dogfight that saw both flying boats wildly manoeuvring as Thompson fought to bring all the PB4Y-1’s guns to bear. At the same time, the enemy tried to evade. To gain speed, both aeroplanes dropped their depth bombs. Thompson’s gunners rake the Emily from point plane range, setting both engines on fire. Moments later, its starboard wing float hit the water, tearing off the wing and sending the flying boat cartwheeling into the ocean.[8]

Conclusion

As the US Navy advanced across the Pacific, new radar countermeasures units arrived in the theatre, providing detailed maps showing the location of all the Japanese radars, such as the one below.

Radar map
Japanese radar coverage of the Philippines (Source: Author’s Collection)

This information allowed attacking raids to follow flight plans that would provide a minimum warning to the Japanese. By the end of the Second World War, 18 land-based US Navy patrol squadrons had been modified to carry improved radar receivers and one of the three airborne jammers the Radar Research Laboratory developed.[9] These units were built upon the experience and lessons learned by Heron and Gumz in 1943 and 1944.

Thomas Wildenberg is an award-winning scholar with special interests in aviators, naval aviation, and technological innovation in the military. He is the author of several books on various naval topics and biographies of Joseph Mason Reeves, Billy Mitchell, and Charles Stark Draper.

Header image: A US Navy Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator patrol bomber taking off from Eniwetok Airfield (Stickell Field), 13 April 1944. The photo was taken from the top of the observation tower. (Source: Wikimedia)

[1] For more on this topic see: Thomas Wildenberg, Fighting in the Electromagnetic Spectrum: U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Electronic Warfare Aircraft, Operations, and Equipment (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2023), pp. 9-19.

[2] Alfred W. Price, The History of U.S. Electronic Warfare – Volume I: The Years of Innovation—Beginnings to 1946 (Arlington, VA: Association of Old Crows, 1984), pp. 137-8; Craig A. Bellamy, ‘The Beginnings of the Secret Australian Radar Countermeasures Unit During the Pacific War’ (PhD Thesis, Charles Darwin University, 2020), p. 192.

[3] Price, The History of U.S. Electronic Warfare – Volume I, p. 138.

[4] Lawrence Heron, cited by Price, The History of U.S. Electronic Warfare – Volume I, pp. 145-7.

[5] Price, The History of U.S. Electronic Warfare – Volume I, p. 147.

[6] Michel D. Roberts, Dictionary of American Naval Squadrons – Volume I: The History of VA, VAH, VAK, VAL, VAP and VFA Squadrons (Washington DC: Naval Historical Center, 1995), p. 623; Price, The History of U.S. Electronic Warfare – Volume I, p. 144.

[7] Edward M. Young, H6K “Mavis”/H8K “Emily VS PB4Y-1/2 Liberator/Privateer Pacific Theater 1943-45 (London: Osprey Publishing, 2023).

[8] Young, H6K “Mavis”/H8K “Emily VS PB4Y-1/2 Liberator/Privateer Pacific Theater 1943-45.

[9] Thomas Wildenberg, ‘Fighting in the Electromagnetic Spectrum: U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Electronic Warfare Aircraft, Missions, and Equipment,’ lecture given at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, 14 June 2024.

#Podcast – “A Dizzy Idea” – The Airplanes that Didn’t Make It: An Interview with Dr Kenneth P. Werrell

#Podcast – “A Dizzy Idea” – The Airplanes that Didn’t Make It: An Interview with Dr Kenneth P. Werrell

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

For every military aircraft that takes to the skies, many others never get off the drawing board or make it into full production. Renowned and prolific aviation historian Kenneth P. Werrell talks to us in his new book, Air Force Disappointments, Mistakes, and Failures, 1940-1990, about some of these projects and why some aeroplanes never seem to take off.

9781648431296

Dr Kenneth P. Werrell is the author of Death from the Heavens: A History of Strategic Bombing, Sabres over MIG Alley: The F-86 and the Battle for Air Superiority over Korea, Chasing the Silver Bullet: US Air Force Weapons Development from Vietnam to Desert Storm, Blankets of Fire: U.S. Bombers Over Japan During World War II, and other books.

Header image: A North American XB-70A Valkyrie rolling out after landing, employing drag chutes to slow down. In the photo, the outer wing panels are slightly raised. The panels were lowered to improve stability when the XB-70 was flying at high speed. (Source: Wikimedia)

Expression of Interest – Editor, From Balloons to Drones

Expression of Interest – Editor, From Balloons to Drones

Job title: Editor

Established in 2016, From Balloons to Drones has successfully developed into a well-regarded online scholarly platform dedicated to analysing and debating air power history, theory, and contemporary operations in their broadest sense, including space and cyber power. Our outputs include articles ranging from scholarly pieces to book reviews and a successful podcast series.

The role
To help us develop further, From Balloons to Drones is looking to recruit an emerging and passionate air power specialist to join our editorial team. This voluntary role’s primary purpose is to work with the editorial team to peer-review submissions while supporting the aims and objectives of From Balloons to Drones in other areas.

What do we offer?
The From Balloons to Drones team comprises experienced and knowledgeable air power scholars and editors who will mentor, advise, and assist the successful applicant. In addition, this role will allow you to develop your editing skills and experience of engaging with the broader air power studies community.

Who are we looking for?
Are you passionate about the study of air power and military aviation? Are you interested in the contest of ideas? Do you want to be involved in publishing new and exciting research? Then this role is for you.

From Balloons to Drones welcomes and encourages applications for this new role from applicants working in a wide range of fields, including but not limited to military history, international relations, strategic studies, law, and archaeology. The role is open to postgraduates, academics, policymakers, service personnel, and relevant professionals who are involved in researching the subject of air power and military aviation.

From Balloons to Drones actively encourages and promotes diversity within the field of air power studies. We particularly encourage applications from those underrepresented within the air power studies community.

Job functions

  1. Contribute to the peer review of submissions.
  2. Contribute to building a core community of interest using social media that furthers the aims and objectives of From Balloons to Drones.
  3. Contribute to content creation for From Balloons to Drones across all platforms.
  4. Professionally represent From Balloons to Drones at conferences and other events.
  5. Undertake additional duties as required by the Editor-in-Chief.

Applications
To apply, contact Dr Ross Mahoney (airpowerstudies@gmail.com) with a copy of your CV and a brief cover letter (c. 500 words) explaining why you wish to join the team.

Closing date: 30 September 2024

You can learn more about the From Balloons to Drones editorial team here.

#Podcast – “Keep ‘Em Flying!”: An Interview with Dr Stan Fisher

#Podcast – “Keep ‘Em Flying!”: An Interview with Dr Stan Fisher

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

The Pacific Theater of the Second World War was massive and had vast numbers of ships and aeroplanes. Keeping a force like that operational and effective takes tremendous work behind the scenes. In our latest episode, Dr Stan Fisher takes us through his new book, Sustaining the Carrier War: The Deployment of U.S. Naval Air Power to the Pacific, to show the often overlooked people behind the scenes: the mechanics and maintainers who kept the planes working and kept the carriers able to keep air power in the air in the war against Japan.

Version 1.0.0

Dr Stan Fisher, a commander in the U.S. Navy, is an assistant professor of naval and American history at the United States Naval Academy.  Before transitioning to the classroom, he accumulated over 2,500 flight hours as a US Navy pilot, mainly in SH-60B & MH-60R Seahawk helicopters. He earned a commission through the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1997 and has multiple deployments on frigates, cruisers, and aircraft carriers. Fisher has also served as a weapons and tactics instructor, squadron maintenance officer, and operational test director. Additionally, he has completed tours of duty in engineering and acquisitions at the Naval Air Systems Command.  He is a past recipient of the Samuel Eliot Morison Naval History Scholarship and earned his PhD from the University of Maryland.

Header image: USS Intrepid (CV-11) operating in the Philippine Sea in November 1944. Note the Grumann F6F Hellcat fighter parked on an outrigger forward of her island. (Source: NH 97468, US Naval History and Heritage Command)

#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episode Nine

#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episode Nine

By Dr Luke Truxal

Editorial note: On 26 January 2024, Apple TV+ launched the much-anticipated series Masters of the Air. This series follows the actions of the US 100th Bomb Group during the Combined Bomber Offensive in the Second World War. As the series is being aired, our Book Reviews Editor, Dr Luke Truxal, the author of Uniting against the Reich (2023), will critically review each episode.  

In the final episode of Masters of the Air, we see the episode successfully bringing the plots of the US 100th Bomb Group to a satisfying conclusion. It did well as an episode designed to finish the series and bring it to a successful landing. During the episode, we see the major characters resolve their past and begin to face their futures. Major Harry Crosby struggles with the nature of the air war and toils with how he has changed during the war. This is something that he struggled with after the war, like most veterans. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Rosenthal saw the Holocaust first-hand as he toured a concentration camp after he was shot down and rescued by troops from the Soviet Union’s Red Army. After the war, Rosenthal participated in the prosecution of Nazi officials at Nuremberg for their roles in the Holocaust. Finally, we see Majors Gale Clevan and John Egan face the horrors of the march from Stalag Luft III to their new camp at Mooseberg. During the march, Egan finally embraces the leadership role he had tried to avoid throughout the series.

The episode begins with Rosenthal and the 100th Bomb Group attacking Berlin in February 1945. During the raid, Rosenthal is shot down for the second time in the war. As his plane falls out of formation, he makes his way towards the Soviet lines east of Berlin. By buying this time, he gave his crew the best opportunity to be rescued by the Soviets. After Rosenthal bails out and lands behind the Soviet lines, the viewers get their first glimpse of the nature of the fighting on the Eastern Front. German soldiers are shot as they are surrendering. This might be the only time we see the Eastern Front in a series produced by Tom Hanks and Stephen Spielberg, and they execute it well. The fighting on the Eastern Front was one without mercy, and the writers did not shy away from showing Soviet war crimes. After Rosenthal is rescued, he spends time behind the Soviet lines. At one point, he tours a concentration camp that the Red Army had liberated. He is clearly shaken by what he has seen. Later, before he is put on an aeroplane to begin his long circuitous route back to Thorpe Abbotts, he meets with a Jewish family. He starts to ask questions about what happened during the German occupation. As he begins to learn about the nature of the genocide conducted by the Germans, he is clearly shaken and changed by this experience. By the time he returns to Crosby at Thorpe Abbotts, he has no remorse for the German people suffering under the bombs after what he has seen.

Masters_Of_The_Air_Photo_010902
Nate Mann in Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

Crosby himself is dealing with many changes in his life. During the latter months at Thorpe Abbotts, we can see that he is becoming more challenging to live with as the only original group member to remain with the 100th Bomb Group throughout the war. At one point, he physically assaults another officer for failing to have the equipment room ready for the combat crews as they are trying to get their parachutes for the upcoming raid. This is something that Crosby notes in his book, A Wing and a Prayer, on several occasions, which is partially why he was sent on leave to the United States. When Rosenthal returns, Crosby updates him on his life and the fact that he will become a father. Crosby doubts whether he will be a good father after everything he has gone through. He also hints at his doubts about the morality of some of the bombings that they are doing. Rosenthal lets Crosby know he will be a good father and tries to get him to put aside his doubts about the air war. This is another good discussion because it shows the divisions airmen felt over their attacks against Germany. It also shows how the war has changed Crosby and Rosenthal. Rosenthal gains confidence that they are doing the right thing in the air war after his experiences on the ground, but Crosby has doubts due to the destruction of German cities and significant losses of life.

Clevan and Egan are given short notice that they have only minutes to pack as they are about to leave Stalag Luft III with the Soviets driving towards the camp. This is the beginning of their march to a new camp, Stalag VII-A, located in Moosburg, Germany. On the march, we see the Americans witness the downfall of Nazi Germany within Germany itself. We still see the prisoners attacked and strafed by United States Army Air Force P-51 Mustangs, which misidentified them as a troop column. In another instance, we see the fanatical support for Hitler’s Germany in one of the guards participating in the march. At the same time, we see an armoured column of German soldiers pass the prisoners. Those in the armoured column clearly look beaten. In addition to the veterans who have seen too much combat in a war that they have clearly lost by this point, we also see the images of young boys and older men in the armoured formation. As the column gets closer to Moosburg, Clevan sees an opportunity for a number of other prisoners to attempt to escape. Realising that he will not make it, Egan obstructs the German guards pursuing Clevan and his comrades. This is where Egan really shines. Instead of trying to make a bolt for it, he helps his friend and comrades escape. Thus ensuring he would remain a prisoner for the remainder of the war. The story for Egan ends when he is liberated from Moosburg with the other prisoners by the US 14th Armored Division.

Masters_Of_The_Air_Photo_010904
Callum Turner and Austin Butler in Masters of the Air (Source: Apple TV+)

The episode ends with the ground personnel packing up Thorpe Abbotts and the 100th Bomb Group taking off to return home to the United States. While the aircrews fly back on their planes, the ground echelon returns to the United States via troop transport across the Atlantic. The series ends on a sombre note. During their final pre-flight check, Egan asks Clevan what he is thinking. Clevan responds by stating that he is thinking about the airmen they left behind. Due to the high attrition rate in the air war, many viewers struggled to connect with many of the new crews as the original members of the 100th Bomb Group were shot down. For men like Egan and Clevan, the losses of their comrades like Biddick and Bubbles, stuck with them long after the war. This brief moment tries to remind viewers of the high losses that the 100th Bomb Group and US Eighth Air Force suffered throughout the war.

Like previous episodes, this one has a couple of missed opportunities. First, seeing more of the US 332nd Fighter Group in this episode and the rest of the series would have been nice. Viewers never really saw the group conduct bomber escort missions, which it became known for throughout the air war. Additionally, there was an opportunity to cover Operation Thunderclap and the firebombing of Dresden from 13 to 15 February 1945. This would have provided better context for the viewers as Crosby and Rosenthal discuss the merits of the air war itself. Finally, I will state that the British spy plot that was dropped during the episode was the smart call to save airtime from tying off the other plot lines developed throughout the series. This decision did make me wonder why that story was even being told in the first place.

Overall, Masters of the Air has now become the best depiction of the American experience in the air war over Europe on screen. While this series has a lot of flaws, which I have noted throughout these reviews, it covers more ground than other depictions of the air war well. Also, it captures the nature of the fighting in ways that previous depictions could not be due to the technological limitations of their times. This series did a good job of paying homage to the experience of the American airman while also showing the brutality of air combat. Whereas previous depictions of air warfare chose to depict combat in the skies as more knightly duels or did not have the technological capabilities to fully capture the horrors of the air war, this series brought the struggles of the American airman front and centre. Scholars now have a series they can better use to talk about the air war with students and the public. I hope this series will inspire many young viewers to be the next generation of air power historians who usher in more scholarship on this subject at a time when it is most needed. While it is too early to tell, this series has renewed interest in the air war and the men who flew these planes into combat. If that is the only legacy of the television series, it has already contributed significantly to the field by renewing interest in the topic.

Dr Luke Truxal is an adjunct at Columbia State Community College in Tennessee. He completed his PhD in 2018 at the University of North Texas with his dissertation, ‘Command Unity and the Air War Against Germany.’ His previous publications include ‘Bombing the Romanian Rail Network’ in the Spring 2018 issue of Air Power History. He also wrote ‘The Politics of Operational Planning: Ira Eaker and the Combined Bomber Offensive in 1943’ in the Journal of Military Aviation History. In addition, Truxal is researching the effectiveness of joint air operations between the Allied air forces in the Second World War. He can be reached on Twitter at @Luke_Truxal.

Header image:  Austin Butler in Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

#Editorial – What content would you like to see on the ‘From Balloons to Drones’ podcast?

#Editorial – What content would you like to see on the ‘From Balloons to Drones’ podcast?

In 2019, From Balloons to Drones established a podcast series that aimed to provide an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. Since then we have published 47 interviews with various authors and discussed numerous topics.

As we continue to develop and grow, the time has come to ask our audience what you would like to hear on our podcast. All answers are welcome. If your answer is not in this list below simply select ‘Other’ and provide more details in the comments. We look forward to your feedback. In the meantime, you can find our podcast channel here on Soundcloud.

#Podcast – “There is a Holy Trinity of US Air Force History”: An Interview with Dr Brian Laslie

#Podcast – “There is a Holy Trinity of US Air Force History”: An Interview with Dr Brian Laslie

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

In our latest podcast, we put our co-host and editor, Dr Brian Laslie, in the hot seat to discuss his newest book, Fighting from Above: A Combat History of the US Air Force, from the University of Oklahoma Press. He discusses the earliest days of American air power up through the present and looks into the future.

51HT2sVpfiL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_

Dr Brian Laslie is a US Air Force Historian and Command Historian at the United States Air Force Academy. Formerly, he was the Deputy Command Historian at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). A 2001 graduate of The Citadel and a historian of air power studies, he received his Masters’ from Auburn University Montgomery in 2006 and his PhD from Kansas State University in 2013. He is the author of Air Power’s Lost Cause: The American Air Wars of Vietnam (2021),  Architect of Air Power: General Laurence S. Kuter and the Birth of the US Air Force (2017) and The Air Force Way of War (2015). The latter book was selected for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s 2016 professional reading list and the 2017 RAF Chief of the Air Staff’s reading list. He can be found on Twitter at @BrianLaslie.

Header image: A North American P-51 Mustang of the United States Army Air Force over France, c. 1944. (Source: US National Archives and Records Administration)

#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episode Eight

#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episode Eight

By Dr Luke Truxal

Editorial note: On 26 January 2024, Apple TV+ launched the much-anticipated series Masters of the Air. This series follows the actions of the US 100th Bomb Group during the Combined Bomber Offensive in the Second World War. As the series is being aired, our Book Reviews Editor, Dr Luke Truxal, the author of Uniting against the Reich (2023), will critically review each episode.  

With only one more episode left, Masters of the Air turned in another disappointing performance in episode eight. The poor pacing of episode seven and, to some degree, episode six has forced the show into a dilemma, namely, what to cover in the final episodes. The showrunners have now decided to cover the significant events of the summer, fall, and early winter of 1944 that shaped the lives of the US 100th Bomb Group, the 332nd Fighter Group, and the prisoners at Stalag Luft III in just 51 minutes. That is too much to ask of any television series. This episode failed largely due to poor pacing and trying to cover too many topics without going into depth on any of them. As a result, the show gave each storyline a token appearance, and, as such, it lacked the substance of the series’ first five episodes. Given this, one must wonder if this series had been written and filmed with the intent of being a much longer television series and how poorly these subjects were covered.

Episode eight covers three main storylines. For the 100th Bomb Group at Thorpe Abbotts, the focus is Major Harry Crosby’s mental and physical breakdown due to the stress of planning missions that force him to be sent on a four-week leave. The second major plot revolves around the prisoners at Stalag Luft III and their preparations to fight back, escape, or be marched to another camp. Finally, the series introduced a new storyline with only one episode remaining, namely that of the famous 332nd Fighter Group – a unit composed of African-American personnel and more commonly known as the ‘Tuskegee Airmen.’ Even though there are some good moments where the show portrays the real struggles of these men, by grazing the surface of each one of these topics, viewers and historians come away asking for more. Masters of the Air tried to do too much, and this episode and the rest of the series paid the price.

Much of the Crosby plot in this episode focuses on his work as a staff officer and his ultimate breakdown. The lead-up to Operation OVERLORD, the landing in Normandy and, ultimately, the liberation of France, has Crosby working for days without sleep. Crosby narrates himself trying to push through and continue planning missions as he feels the weight of each mission on his shoulders. He consumes coffee like water and even resorts to taking medication to keep himself awake. Eventually, he passes out in front of Lieutenant Colonel John ‘Jack’ Kidd from exhaustion. This ultimately leads the new commander of the 100th Bomb Group, Colonel Thomas Jeffrey, to order Crosby to take a four-week vacation to recharge his batteries. This shows the war’s effect on those serving behind the front lines and involved in planning the conduct of the Second World War. This is something that did not get enough coverage in Band of Brothers or The Pacific. With the notable exception of Kenneth More’s portrayal of Captain Jonathan Shepard in Sink the Bismarck in 1960, this is something not often captured well in war films. However, throughout the Second World War, staff officers played a vital role in the success of their units, and it was not uncommon for those leading from the rear to suffer significant health crises because they quite literally worked themselves to death. Notably, for example, Major General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., the eldest son of the US President, died of a heart attack while serving as the Assistant Division Commander of the US 4th Infantry Division during the fighting in Normandy. Dealing with this issue was a nice addition to the series.

Masters of the Air introduced the story of the 332nd Fighter Group, more commonly known as the ‘Tuskegee Airmen,’ in this episode. There are a host of problems with this plot line. First, telling the story of this all-black fighter group is important, but giving the group only minutes of screen time in the second to last episode of the series does not do their story justice. Either increase the number of episodes to tell the story well or save that story for its separate mini-series. The last-minute addition of the 332nd Fighter Group also created additional problems with this plot. For example, we are never really introduced to the group itself and their previous struggles to get into combat. From training and through participation in the North African and Sicilian Campaigns, black fighter pilots faced an uphill struggle to prove their worth. Furthermore, the group became more widely known for their more conservative escort fighter tactics, leading them to snuggle tightly to the bomber formations. This hallmark of the 332nd Fighter Group contributed to their ability to reduce bomber losses while on escort duty and earned them a sterling reputation throughout the US Army Air Forces (USAAF). This moves us into the key individuals. Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr. is never really introduced. His story is critical here.

While the episode focuses on Lieutenants Alexander Jefferson and Richard Macon from the 332nd Fighter Group, they do not receive a proper introduction either. They are flung at us. Finally, the only mission we see is the 332nd providing close air support for Operation DRAGOON, the landings in southern France in August 1944. During this episode, Jefferson and Macon are shot down and then captured by the Germans. They go through the same interrogations that Egan also experienced in episode six. The key difference here is that the Germans used the state of racism in the United States to get Jefferson and Macon to turn on their country. While this fails, it is one of the few hints of these men’s challenges in fighting for their country. Instead of putting a face on racism, Masters of the Air decided to keep it faceless and very much in the background. Once again, this was another missed opportunity. In short, by dedicating so little time to this plot in previous episodes or by not expanding the episode count to tell this story well, we get additional problems. The 332nd Fighter Group’s story is glossed over, key individuals get a footnote, and finally, racism hardly appears in the episode.

Masters_of_the_Air_Photo_010812
Adam Long, Matt Gavan, Callum Turner and Austin Butler in Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

At Stalag Luft III, we see the Americans struggle with being cut off from the events of the world and the daily boring, melancholy life that takes over. It is a real struggle for Major John Egan, who wants to do something. Meanwhile, Major Gale Clevan tries to organise men to build a new water well. This leads to a fight between the two officers. Eventually, we see Jefferson and Macon arrive at the camp. When they arrived, some men regarded them as heroes, referring to them as the ‘Red Tails.’ Few American airmen knew of the 332nd Fighter Group besides their tail markings. Most did not know that they were an all-black fighter unit. So, this scene where they are greeted as heroes does not land well. Some American airmen did know about the 332nd Fighter Group, but they arrived later at the camp. Most of the airmen interred at Stalag Luft III were shocked to find that black fighter pilots were flying in the USAAF. This scene seems flung at the viewers without any context, especially considering that viewers never got to see the 332nd Fighter Group fly an escort mission in this episode. As the episode ends at Stalag Luft III, the airmen realise that they must work together to prepare for liberation, execution, a forced march to another camp, or escape. By the end of the episode, the different plot lines introduced in episodes six, seven, and eight finally start coming together to set up the series finale.

Overall, this episode fails because it tries to do too much. It tried to cover much of the fighting in 1944 in a single episode and juggled too many plots. In attempting to cover so many stories, we see the episode fail to introduce new characters, units, and stories well properly. Context is missing a lot of the time with each of these plots. Viewers are zipping from story to story like the fast-forward button has been hit on 1944 so we can get to the end of the war. This left a lot to be desired. One positive aspect of the episode was the analysis of Crosby’s physical and mental breakdown as a staff officer. However, one bright spot, in an episode that gave token coverage to a wide range of important historical events and topics, did not help this episode. Ultimately, the approach taken did not serve the series or the history well. One must wonder if this series was written with more episodes in mind and had been forced to make dramatic cuts at some point during the production process.

Dr Luke Truxal is an adjunct at Columbia State Community College in Tennessee. He completed his PhD in 2018 from the University of North Texas with his dissertation ‘Command Unity and the Air War Against Germany.’ His previous publications include ‘Bombing the Romanian Rail Network’ in the Spring 2018 issue of Air Power History. He also wrote ‘The Politics of Operational Planning: Ira Eaker and the Combined Bomber Offensive in 1943’ in the Journal of Military Aviation History. In addition, Truxal is researching the effectiveness of joint air operations between the Allied air forces in the Second World War. He can be reached on Twitter at @Luke_Truxal.

Header image: Josiah Cross in Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

#BookReview – Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions – The Missing Chapters

#BookReview – Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions – The Missing Chapters

Reviewed by Dr Brian Laslie

Paul F. Crickmore, Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions – The Missing Chapters. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2023. Appendices. Bibliography. Hbk, 528 pp.

91m-3MYFv9L._SL1500_

Author Paul Crickmore is the unofficial Dean of the school of SR-71 studies. Much of what is public knowledge is due to his diligent efforts and publication record. Crickmore has spent decades uncovering every piece of paper concerning the program, from its reception to its retirement. He has left no stone unturned and no recently declassified document unexamined. No discussion of the A-12, SR-71, or any other variants is complete without mentioning his name. Every academic or researcher interested in air power studies, particularly those interested in low observability or the history of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, has one of his books near. His previous titles include Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions (Revised Edition 2016), Lockheed SR-71: The Secret Missions Exposed (Osprey Modern Military) 1993, Lockheed SR-71: The Secret Missions Exposed 1997, and Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird 1986. Crickmore has recently published what might be rightly said to be the final word on the history of this iconic airframe in Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions, The Missing Chapters.

This is not just the history of the SR-71 but begins with a rather detailed examination of aerial ISR platforms in the post-World War II and Cold War era, including the U-2. Crickmore should be commended early on for his thorough analysis and excellent work on stealth vs performance characteristics (p. 44). An early highlight is the section detailing Convair’s ‘First Invisible Super Hustler (FISH),’ a modified B-58 with a parasitic jet-powered aircraft attached to the hull that would drop and rocket off on its mission. I chuckled at the idea of a B-58 crewmember being forced to trade in their coveted ‘I fly to the Hustler’ for an ‘I fly the FISH.’ While Convair worked on their flying FISH, members of Lockheed went through significant changes in designs for their ‘Archangel’ concept. ‘Archangel’ was the name Lockheed engineer Clarence ‘Kelly’ Johnson used for his internal design efforts for a future Surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. The final concept drawing was the twelfth of a series of the ‘Archangel,’ thus the A-12 (44-45).

DF-ST-89-06277
An air-to-air overhead view of an SR-71A strategic reconnaissance aircraft, c. 1988. (Source: US National Archives and Records Administration (NAID 6438039))

Crickmore’s book really ‘takes off’ in his chapter on SR-71 operations over North Vietnam as part of Operation BLACK SHIELD and its photo reconnaissance missions detecting North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites and other targets of interest, including photographs of the Hoa Loa (Hanoi Hilton) prison complex. This chapter also gives an excellent description of North Vietnam’s missile operators’ attempts to track and engage the A-12. From there, Crickmore covers every possible A-12 and SR-71 operation and deployment. Historians of the Cold War will especially enjoy Crickmore’s details about the USSR’s attempts to intercept the SR-71.

There are some drawbacks to what is otherwise a very fine work. The book is weighty, both for its in-depth research and size. At more than 500 pages of high-gloss paper, the book is literally heavy. Its measurements are 9.9 x 12.55 inches, and its weight is nearly seven pounds. This has become a trend for some presses, which one might call the ‘high-end coffee table book.’  This is not a book to be carried around in your spare time and read; it remained firmly ensconced on my desk for the duration of its review. In reality, this is something of a hybrid between an in-depth history, a photographic coffee table book, and a reference book. One of my students who noticed the copy sitting on my desk stated, “It looks good on a bookshelf, but no one actually reads those cover to cover.” No one except book reviewers, of course. Another problem is that there are also no footnotes, another trend in some recent publications, perhaps to attract a larger audience and not be perceived as a stuffy academic tome. However, there is a real and dangerous drawback to not noting where particular quotes or data were extracted. The appendices – one of Crickmore’s greatest contributions is his appendices – are slightly different from the previous version published in 2016, although the missing information is available online.

Crickmore’s book, this new and expanded edition of Lockheed Blackbird, is indeed the final word and ultimate reference guide for the history of the entire SR-71 program. As Crickmore notes, few aircraft transcend to being ‘iconic,’ and undoubtedly, the SR-71 surpassed that label many years ago. Crickmore’s book is a must-have for every aviation enthusiast and a must-read for every aviation and Cold War scholar who seeks to understand this legendary aircraft’s history, operations, and legacy.

Dr Brian Laslie is a US Air Force Historian and Command Historian at the United States Air Force Academy. Formerly he was the Deputy Command Historian at North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). A 2001 graduate of The Citadel and a historian of air power studies, he received his Masters’ from Auburn University Montgomery in 2006 and his PhD from Kansas State University in 2013. He is the author of Air Power’s Lost Cause: The American Air Wars of Vietnam (2021),  Architect of Air Power: General Laurence S. Kuter and the Birth of the US Air Force (2017) and The Air Force Way of War (2015). The latter book was selected for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s 2016 professional reading list and the 2017 RAF Chief of the Air Staff’s reading list. He can be found on Twitter at @BrianLaslie.

Header image: A right front view of an SR-71B Blackbird strategic reconnaissance training aircraft, silhouetted on the runway at sundown at Beale AFB, 1 June 1988. Image by Technical Sergeant Michael Haggerty. (Source: US National Archives and Records Administration (NAID 6438040))