Air Operation, Hickam Field 1 March 1941

AIR OPERATION COMMITTEE

Hickam Field, T.H

1 March 1941

Subject: Minority Report, Air Operations Committee

To: Planning Representatives, Joint Coastal Frontier Defense Committee

1. The partial report of the air operations committee convened in compliance with joint directive dated 14 February 1941. G-A16-1/A7-3 (2)/1ND14 (0135), draft copy attached, is predicated on a principle to which as the Air Corps member of that committee I cannot subscribe, hence this report of disagreement therewith.

2. The majority of the members of the air command committee believe that joint air operations in defense of objectives in the Hawaiian area can be most effectively accomplished if conducted under the principle it enunciated in paragraphs 9b (3) and 10 of “Joint Action of the Army and Navy”, i.e. “The Exercise of Unity of Command”.

3. In this viewpoint I cannot concur. Paragraph eight of the above reference prescribes 2 methods of coordinating the operations of the forces of the Army and the Navy; i.e., “Mutual Cooperation”, and “The Exercise of Unity of Command”. Further paragraph 9s of the same reference states that “Mutual Cooperation” will be the method normally employed in coordinating the operations of these forces. After full consideration of the points brought out in the committee discussion of the world situation and particularly as to the implications involving the defense of Hawaii in this connection, I have failed to grasp the cogency of the hypotheses that the exercise of “Unity of Command”, is the proper panacea for the control of joint air operations of the Army and the Navy in this area. On the contrary it is believed that with the present status of our equipment and training, and the probability of wide differences in the situations which may confront the two services in the defense of vital naval and military elements in the Hawaiian area indicates “Mutual Cooperation” as the most comprehensive principle under which to attack the basic problems of defense.

This principle provides A logical and legal basis for operating agreements between the commanders of the respective services upon which to base specific plans for the joint employment of their air components. Experience in the joint air operations in the last few years will testify to its efficacy as a method of coordination.

The constituent elements of the Army and Navy air components are each equipped and trained to most the requirements of a specific type of military or naval operation. These requirements have conditioned the powers and limitations of both personnel and equipment in each case. Although there exists a similarity between the air units of the two services in this respect, this similarity in no sense approaches true homogeneity.

Efficiency and flexibility in the military operations of our available air forces can only be preserved when the true respective elements thereof are employed in such a way as to utilize their maximum powers in any given situation. If this thesis is accepted it is inherent that the authority of the Army and Navy commanders to exercise control over their own air components, must at all times be reserved, until in the face of a specific and clear situation indicating the necessity or desirability therefore, under the principle of “Mutual Cooperation”, they agree to place all or part of their respective air components under the control of one service for a joint operation.

I can perceive no valid obstruction to the most effective employment of the air components of the two services in the Hawaiian area under this principle. The vesting of responsibility, and concurrently, command, in either of the two services for specific operations in any given situation, is in no way impeded, the judgment and purpose of the responsible commanders, inferentially or otherwise, is never impugned, and the morals of aviation personnel can be maintained on a psychologically healthy basis.

In disagreeing with the report of the air command committee I wish to make it clear that I heartily concur in the objectives sought in the recommendations therein although I cannot agree with the method recommended for their attainment.

Accordingly it is recommended that the partial report of the committee on air command, submitted under date of 25 February 1941, copy attached, be amended to accomplish the objectives sought therein under the principle of “Mutual Cooperation” as follows:

Par. 2 (a) No Change.

Par. 2 (b) Delete: “That joint air operations in defense of vital military and naval elements in the Hawaiian area will be most efficiently accomplished if planning and preparation therefore are conducted in accordance with par. 8 (a) reference (b) i.e., “Mutual Cooperation”.”

Par. 2 (d) Add the following: However, agreements for joint air command must be predicated upon a situation sufficiently clear to indicate its effect on the relative responsibilities of the respective commanders which will determine the extent and period for which each might properly divest himself of the means provided for the discharge of his respective responsibilities.

Par. 2 (e) No Change

Par. 3 Delete and substitute therefor the following: “It is therefore recommended that the Army and Navy commanders in the Hawaiian area agree to be guided by the following provisions”.

Par. 3 (a) & (b) No Change.

Par. 3 (c) After “operating” in first line, insert “at sea”.

Par. 3 (d) No change.

Par. 3 (e) Delete.

Par. 3 (f) No change.

Par. 3 (g) Note changed to read: “Two Army representatives should be assigned to the Office of the Commandant 14th Naval District, one an Air Corps officer, and one Coast Artillery Officer, who should be selected with specific reference to his knowledge of anti-aircraft weapons.

Par. 3 (h) No change.

ST. CLAIR STREETT,Lieut. Col., Air Corps, Air Corps Representative, Air Command Committee.

1 Incl – Report of Air Operations Committee.

Air Operation, Hickam Field 1 March 1941

DONATE

VOLUNTEERING