World's oldest air arm(s)

[Blimpyboy]

Hiya all,

 

Just thought I'd pull the pin on the hand grenade regarding start a discussion about which is/are the oldest air arms in the world.

I think it'll be interesting to see everyone's thoughts on the whys and wherefores of what constitutes 'oldest'.

 

We're all familiar with the issue of the RAF being the oldest independent Air Force, but there are probably a few air arms that pre-date the RAF and that are still in existence today.

I reckon it'd also be fun to find out about some of the air arms that we may not be familiar with (I'm thinking eastern European stuff that may seem obscure to many of us).

Try chucking in some insignia too - it's fun to see how countries have changed their national markings over the course of history.

 

Usual rules apply: play nice, respect each other's opinions and no politics!

 

 

Discuss... 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

I'll start off: How about the Italians starting the ball rolling in 1911?

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Black Knight]

Prussians, 1870, used balloons to attack Paris in the Franco-Prussian war

US Federal Government, 1862, used balloons to attack Confederate positions, They dropped handgrenades which were at that time small hollow iron or glass balls filled with gunpowder and had a fuse, like a cartoon 'bomb'

Chinese, about 2000BC/BCE used man carrying kites to carry archers over their enemies, to shoot arrows down on to them

The British actually started back about 1878 with an Army Balloon Section (I need to check that date) which evolved into the RFC

 

The US started, in 1908 -1916, with a single gold or red star marking on their balloons and aeroplanes, then when they joined in WW1 they took over the Imperial Russian roundel of red/blue/white and the Russians went on to use the red star!

[Procopius]

29 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

US Federal Government, 1862, used balloons to attack Confederate positions, They dropped handgrenades which were at that time small hollow iron or glass balls filled with gunpowder and had a fuse, like a cartoon 'bomb'

 

Where was this? The only Balloon Section I'm aware of was with the Army of the Potomac in 1862, and was used for observation.

[AltcarBoB]

The RAF was partly formed from the Royal Naval Air Service and as the Royal Navy can trace its roots back to King Athelstans fleet defeating a Viking fleet in a sea battle in 851 this means the RAF has been in existence for 1169 years 🤪

[Truro Model Builder]

16 minutes ago, AltcarBoB said:

The RAF was partly formed from the Royal Naval Air Service and as the Royal Navy can trace its roots back to King Athelstans fleet defeating a Viking fleet in a sea battle in 851 this means the RAF has been in existence for 1169 years 🤪

That could be considered to be stretching a point. I like your reasoning, mind.

 

Seriously, can the use of a balloon by an army unit be considered as a constituted air arm?

[KevinK]

1 hour ago, Truro Model Builder said:

Seriously, can the use of a balloon by an army unit be considered as a constituted air arm?

Closely related to this, I recently read a fascinating book "Before the Aircraft Carrier" by RD Layman. There are multiple 19th Century examples of balloon-equipped warships being used - or intended to be used - to attack targets. The Austrian Navy's "Vulcano" appears to have been the first, in 1849, then both the Union and Confederate Navies in the 1860's. Success was limited at best.

 

If we discount "one-off" experiments, and the use of balloons purely for observation, it seems that Italy was indeed the first nation to use what might be considered an air force in 1911 in Tripolitania, as @Blimpyboy suggested: they employed a mix of aeroplanes, airships and balloons.

 

Now, the question may be asked: does a field force gathered together for one campaign really constitute an air force?

[Giorgio N]

1 hour ago, KevinK said:

Closely related to this, I recently read a fascinating book "Before the Aircraft Carrier" by RD Layman. There are multiple 19th Century examples of balloon-equipped warships being used - or intended to be used - to attack targets. The Austrian Navy's "Vulcano" appears to have been the first, in 1849, then both the Union and Confederate Navies in the 1860's. Success was limited at best.

 

If we discount "one-off" experiments, and the use of balloons purely for observation, it seems that Italy was indeed the first nation to use what might be considered an air force in 1911 in Tripolitania, as @Blimpyboy suggested: they employed a mix of aeroplanes, airships and balloons.

 

Now, the question may be asked: does a field force gathered together for one campaign really constitute an air force?

The aircraft used by the Italians in Lybia were part of the "Sezione Aeronautica Regio Esercito" (air section of the royal army), a unit established in 1884 to operate balloons and airships that showed interest in the use of aircraft very early. IIRC the first aircraft of the Section was acquired in 1910. So while the use in Lybia was in part to test and get experience on the new technology, these aircraft were not part of a force assembled for the occasion but part of a pre-existing unit tasked with the use of air vehicles in support of military operations.

In this sense the "Sezione" was indeed the first Italian "air force" and was soon espanded to a larger unit. However this remained under Army control til 1923, when it became the independent Regia Arronautica.

The Army later formed an air service, but this is not really related to the pre-1923 force

[KevinK]

39 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

The aircraft used by the Italians in Lybia were part of the "Sezione Aeronautica Regio Esercito" (air section of the royal army), a unit established in 1884 to operate balloons and airships that showed interest in the use of aircraft very early. IIRC the first aircraft of the Section was acquired in 1910. So while the use in Lybia was in part to test and get experience on the new technology, these aircraft were not part of a force assembled for the occasion but part of a pre-existing unit tasked with the use of air vehicles in support of military operations.

So, in some sense, similar in concept to the Royal Engineers' activities prior to the formation of the Royal Flying Corps in 1912, with overseas deployment to South Africa during the Boer War and the work of the Balloon Factory/Royal Aircraft Factory. Your point about a pre-existing unit is crucial to distinguish between military experiments (e.g. Eugene Ely /US Navy) and a planned military use.

[John B (Sc)]

I seem to recall there is  a long running friendly  argument between No 1 Sqn RAF and No 3 Sqn RAF as to which is the 'first squadron' in the RAF. This hinges I think  on whether or not (tethered?) balloons are acceptable as aircraft. 

 

Some of the discussion here sounds  on similar lines! 

[Giorgio N]

10 hours ago, KevinK said:

So, in some sense, similar in concept to the Royal Engineers' activities prior to the formation of the Royal Flying Corps in 1912, with overseas deployment to South Africa during the Boer War and the work of the Balloon Factory/Royal Aircraft Factory. Your point about a pre-existing unit is crucial to distinguish between military experiments (e.g. Eugene Ely /US Navy) and a planned military use.

Yes, I'd say that the existance of a dedicated unit makes a big difference, as is a recognition from the military commands of the need to employ "air power" in support of operations. Where I used brackets as the definition of air power clearly changed over time according to the technology available.

It is probably inevitable that all first activities of such units would have been little more than experiments, but at least they were conducted within a certain recognised framework and this differentiate them from other kind of experiments.

 

This does not mean that I believe the Sezione Aeronautica to have been the first "air force", afterall balloons and other air vehicle had been used by other armies in the past and I am not famliar the development of such units in all armies in the world. There's also the matter of how to define the existence of something as an air force.. officially the Italian unit was not raised to a higher level until later and remained under control of the Corps of Engineers for a few more years while in France the Service Aeronatique was established as a separate Corp earlier.

Then there's the matter of lineage; in a sense the current Italian Air Force can trace its lineage directly to the Sezione Aeronautica of 1884, but lineages are a difficult thing to set right and can be quite controversial. I guess that similar issues would affect anyone trying to trace the lineage of the RAF back to the early aviation units of the British Army, probably can be done but may result in plenty of discussion without a chance of finding a common view across all enthusiasts.

 

To me what matters more historically is the fact that the Italian Army was indeed a very early supporter of the use of aircraft and the interest dated to the first tour of the Wright Brothers. Of course the interest was widespread around the world, however for the Italians the aircraft promised to be a technology that could allow a country with relatively scarce resources to project power in a way not possible until then. In the early XX Century the power of a country was measured in battleships and army divisions, Italy did not have the resources (nor the industrial capacity) to build many battleships and did not possess a large population to have a very large army. By investing in aircraft production they could field a weapon capable of compensating such deficiencies when confronting other powers.

Yet it does not help in determining which was the oldest air force 😀

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Giorgio N

[noelh]

For a question like  this you need to set parameters. Say it must heavier than air aircraft and a properly constituted air arm with machines owned by the government and flown by serving military. I  think the French might  win that  one. 

 

Say independent air force and the RAF wins. 

 

It all depends on the actual question.

[Antti_K]

Hello guys,

 

I would say that Finnish Air Force (as an independent air force) is actually older than the RAF. FinnAF was established on 6.3.1918 and the RAF on 1.4.1918. And of course I was watching both the RAF and the FinnAF on television when they were celebrating their 100 years.

 

On the other hand... British Royal Flying Corps had been in existence for several years earlier and participated in the "Great War". Military aviation in Finland started in February 1918.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Blimpyboy]

On 7/3/2020 at 10:35 PM, Black Knight said:

US Federal Government, 1862, used balloons to attack Confederate positions, They dropped handgrenades which were at that time small hollow iron or glass balls filled with gunpowder and had a fuse, like a cartoon 'bomb'

No way! That's new to me and really interesting - thanks!

 

 

On 7/6/2020 at 6:21 AM, Giorgio N said:

So while the use in Lybia was in part to test and get experience on the new technology, these aircraft were not part of a force assembled for the occasion but part of a pre-existing unit tasked with the use of air vehicles in support of military operations.

Hmmm, I guess that constitutes a unit, rather than a separate air arm, doesn't it?

 

 

On 7/6/2020 at 7:22 AM, John B (Sc) said:

This hinges I think  on whether or not (tethered?) balloons are acceptable as aircraft. 

I think, if you consider balloons to be aircraft, you must think helicopters are aircraft too... 😉

 

 

On 8/12/2020 at 8:51 PM, noelh said:

Say it must heavier than air aircraft and a properly constituted air arm with machines owned by the government and flown by serving military. I  think the French might  win that  one.

Yeah, that's a good way to set the parameters. A unit within a force probably doesn't count - I must admit, I'd always thought the Italians were first off the mark.

 

10 hours ago, Antti_K said:

I would say that Finnish Air Force (as an independent air force) is actually older than the RAF.

I thought so, too. I think it comes down to how one defines an actual independent force - a highly subjective thought process, if you ask me.

This is an interesting article from the RAAF, which pushes its claim to be the world's second-oldest independent air force: https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Pathfinder/PF114-The-Second-Oldest-Air-Force.pdf 

Personally, I don't necessarily agree with the technicality-based rationale behind the RAAF's claim, nor the fact that they give short shrift (although, in a reasonably respectful manner) to the Finns and South Africans. Having said that, I am just an armchair observer in this debate and have not performed any actual academic research on the matter!

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[JohnT]

On 05/07/2020 at 16:54, AltcarBoB said:

The RAF was partly formed from the Royal Naval Air Service and as the Royal Navy can trace its roots back to King Athelstans fleet defeating a Viking fleet in a sea battle in 851 this means the RAF has been in existence for 1169 years 🤪

 

On 05/07/2020 at 17:12, Truro Model Builder said:

That could be considered to be stretching a point. I like your reasoning, mind.

 

 

 

More like pushing the boat out.

 

In the meantime am having a great read at all the answers which has some hitherto unknown stuff - to me at least -  and quite fascinating.

 

 

[John B (Sc)]

"I think, if you consider balloons to be aircraft, you must think helicopters are aircraft too... " - quoting blimpboy

 

Aircraft yes of course, aeroplanes no.  To both balloons and helicopters...

 

Is a tethered balloon really an aircraft ? - now there I'm nor so sure!   Makes a great mess or bar discussion, especially with ex-members of the appropriate Squadrons involved! 

[Giorgio N]

5 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

Hmmm, I guess that constitutes a unit, rather than a separate air arm, doesn't it?

 

 

Pretty much all air arms before WW1 started as units within existing forces, mostly within the army (and often in corps of engineers or similar branches).

It is not easy then to determine when such units started becoming a proper air arm. Should we look at the matter from an administrative point of view ? Or from an operational point of view ? The Italian air force for example during WW1 was part of the Army but also operated independently. Yet it became a fully independent air forces only 5 years after the end of the war. Following this same view the US only had a true independent air force in 1947, but I guess that nobody could say that they didn't have a land based air arm during WW2.

Overall probably the best approach would be to try and understand when each force started becoming not necessarily fully independent but at least "independent enough" tpo be considered an air arm, even if formally under army or navy control. From this point of view probably the earliest true air arm would be the French Service Aeronautique in March 1912

[dov]

Hallo

One episode of 1914 in China: Gunther Plüschow flying a Rumpler Taube in Tsingtau.

After the outbreak of WW1 he had the first dogfight with Japanese seaplanes. According to his book, he used a pistol to shoot at them.

Happy modelling

[mhaselden]

On 8/16/2020 at 11:47 PM, Antti_K said:

Hello guys,

 

I would say that Finnish Air Force (as an independent air force) is actually older than the RAF. FinnAF was established on 6.3.1918 and the RAF on 1.4.1918. And of course I was watching both the RAF and the FinnAF on television when they were celebrating their 100 years.

 

On the other hand... British Royal Flying Corps had been in existence for several years earlier and participated in the "Great War". Military aviation in Finland started in February 1918.

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

The Finnish claim crops up every time this sort of question is asked.  However, I think it's a stretch to claim Finland had the first independent air arm for 2 reasons.

 

Firstly, the air arm fell under Mannerheim who was the chief of the army, so hardly an independent force.  It was Mannerheim who approved the use of the blue hakaristi, Von Rosen's personal good-luck symbol, as the national marking.  

 

Secondly, in March 1918 Finland had just two aircraft.  That's not a force in any way shape or form.  If both engines failed to start, you have zero ability to operate.  An air arm, regardless of whether it's independent, must have the basics of a logistics chain, training programmes, and sufficient personnel and equipment to actually mount operations reliably.  Two aircraft simply isn't sufficient.

 

Now, I applaud the foresight of the Finns in recognizing that air power was sufficiently different to require a different approach than the traditional army/navy routes taken by other countries.  However, the extremely limited aerial capabilities, coupled with the fact that Mannerheim was the ultimate military leader for the new force, make it a stretch to suggest that it was an effective independent air arm.

[Antti_K]

Hello all,

 

I will say that I both agree and disagree with mhaselden. Independent air force was established in March 6th, 1918. At that time (and later on) general Mannerheim was the newly appointed supreme commander of Finnish Defence Forces. He had three "branch" commanders (army, navy, air force) to report directly to him. The first land airbase was established at Utti the same year, the state aircraft factory was established at Helsinki and more airplanes were purchased. So the organization was there from the beginning and it was growing rapidly. Four years later Finnish Air Force had more than 130 airplanes in its inventory and several new air bases. During WWI a number of Finnish men had served as officers and/or NCOs in both the German and Russian armed forces receiving either pilot or observer training and combat experience. Also French military aviator badges were seen during the early years (and today we see odd US Navy SEAL badges!) These men were the first military aviators and flight instructors in Finnish Air Force. An aeromedical center was established a few years later in Helsinki (the WWI era Russian pressure chamber was still used in the 1980s when I started my flying career).

 

As mhaselden pointed out, there were only two airplanes at the beginning. Hardly a force to make an impact; especially if you compare what was happening in the skies of Central Europe at that time. And it wasn't uncommon that both airplanes were un-serviceable at the same time. Actually the very first airplane of FinnAF suffered a landing accident only days after March 6th. However, I think that the number of airplanes on day one isn't that important, especially if you have an organization and a sound plan how to build up your force. This is where I disagree with mhaselden.

 

The Finnish Air Force was established as an independent force from the very beginning. The very first flights were operational just like over Central Europe (leaflet dropping, bombing). Once the air force got started, it has been running continuously for 102 years.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[mhaselden]

Hi Antti,

 

Thanks for your interesting response...and I think you and I will agree on some things and disagree on others.  This is It's an interesting question because it rather depends what is meant by the term "independent air arm", hence I disagree with your statement that "the number of airplanes on day one isn't that important."  An air arm must have the ability to project power reliably and a "force" that can be entirely neutralized by two pre-mission engine failures simply doesn't achieve that aim. 

 

I would also suggest that, by 1918, other air arms, notably the RFC/RNAS, had evolved the operational art to include pretty much every term recognized in modern air power doctrine: defensive counter-air (including night-fighting), offensive counter-air, close air support, reconnaissance, bombing, integration of air and land campaigns (including direct communication between aircraft and ground forces).  Finland couldn't come close to that degree of operational effectiveness or scope of missions.  There are other features of an effective air arm that also were not present on day one in Finland, including robust logistics, maintenance and training programmes.  

 

I think it's fair to say that Finland had the first independent administrative structure for an air arm but it took a number of years to develop into a truly effective air arm.  By comparison, in 1918, the RAF had around 22,000 aircraft, over 300,000 personnel, it had developed all the previously-listed air power missions, and it had fully-developed training, maintenance and logistics functions.  The latter is well illustrated by the demonstrated ability to move literally dozens of squadrons every 1-2 weeks to keep up with advancing Allied forces in the latter half of 1918.  

Edited December 21, 2020 by mhaselden

[Antti_K]

Hello mhaselden,

 

Thank you for an excellent response. I think it is now more than fair to say that we agree on facts (you are very good in reasoning).

 

It is of course one thing to have an organization chart on paper and some assets or a fully functional branch capable of executing all its assigned duties from day one on. I think Mannerheim and his top officers earn our full respect in that sense, that they clearly understood the meaning of an effective air arm and decided to point resources toward that goal. And still it was quite an achievment for a small country (population 3,1 million people) to build an air force of more than 100 airplanes and several airbases in just few years. It is of course very small when you compare the numbers with UK and RFC/RAF. It came as a surprise to me that RAF had so many planes and personnel at that time. Today Finnish Air Force has a nominal strength of 64 combat aircraft (F/A-18), roughly an equal amount of BAe Hawks and a handful of transport planes.

 

I've been keenly watching an excellent German TV drama called "Babylon Berlin". All of the way the story has given hints about the secret German, post WWI military aviation training that took place in Lipetsk (Russia). What a fascinating subject for further research.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[mhaselden]

Antti,

 

Entirely agree.  As I said in my earlier post, Finland should be credited with recognizing the need for an independent air force.  Translating that concept into reality takes a lot of time and effort (although, I must say, Finland's build-up from 2 aircraft in March 1918 was very impressive).  

 

The US military uses the acronym DOTMLPF-P to describe the various elements required to deliver a capability - Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities and Policy.  Clearly, there was a lot of foresight within the Leadership and Policy elements but most of the others were under-developed, to say the least, in March 1918.  

 

Alas, both the FAF and the RAF are shadows of their former selves, at least in terms of aircraft and squadrons.  

 

I haven't seen "Babylon Berlin".  Certainly sounds like an interesting programme.

Kind regards,
Mark

[Antti_K]

I guess the Finnish Air Force had an advantage during the early days: all personnel were trained in European countries that had already taken part in the air war, airplane designing, flight training and so on. So the FinnAFF were able to start with a "second generation" air force organization. A bit like Japan started its industrialization; they adopted at once the best practices western countries had developed over the years, so there wasn't any need to start from the scratch. An approach like this would have saved small country's finite resources.

 

It is also interesting to note, that the unique fighter doctrine Finnish colonel Richard Lorentz wrote during the early 30s, was still studied at the Air Force Academy in the 80s! Ok, we were also learning "the art of aerial fight" written by WWI famed aviators like Immelmann or Boelcke.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Blimpyboy]

On 12/21/2020 at 12:07 PM, mhaselden said:

Secondly, in March 1918 Finland had just two aircraft.  That's not a force in any way shape or form.

 

I think it's ultimately dependent on what the force's missions are and/or what the effect of those aircraft could be in furthering the needs of the nation/state/whatever entity raised it.

 

I agree that a purely administrative (paper) formation doesn't constitute a fit-for-purpose force in being.

However, l feel it's a bit of a stretch to assume that one needs large quantities of fighters or bombers for an element to be a 'force'. What if two functional machines can perform battlefield/maritime reconnaissance roles (time spent in recce is never wasted...)? What if they can perform communications roles, fire spotting/correction roles or a transport role? I would think that any number of aircraft capable of conducting those types of missions are just as valid in constituting a functional air arm.

I think too, that a seed corn fleet (even in twosies and threesies) is just as much a force as the mature formation it may end up being - it's just that the function and capabilities require development and growth - everyone has to crawl before they can walk, and the entity they represent doesn't lose meaning because of that.

 

 

On 12/21/2020 at 12:07 PM, mhaselden said:

If both engines failed to start, you have zero ability to operate.  An air arm, regardless of whether it's independent, must have the basics of a logistics chain, training programmes, and sufficient personnel and equipment to actually mount operations reliably.  Two aircraft simply isn't sufficient.

 

Plenty of military forces around the world have abysmal logistics chains, training programmes, general resourcing and fleet availability but that doesn't make them a non-force. Also, plenty of military forces choose to have small air/naval/ground arms that can only perform an extremely limited number of functions. Additionally, temporary mechanically-related groundings of an entire fleet don't result in a force (or an element/capability therein) not being a valid force, especially to an adversary.

A force in being, however small, would still be honoured as a potential threat by any adversary, and (generally) dealt with accordingly - how many decoys/derelict aircraft have been deliberately targeted despite the adversary having 'confidence' in their non-serviceability (more than a few...).

As to sufficiency, sufficient for what? Depending on the scenario, a limited number of sorties by a handful of aircraft can have just as meaningful a result as sustained operations by large fleets of aircraft.

 

Overall, extremely limited capabilities are still capabilities - and therefore of potential benefit to the operating 'force', regardless of their persistence or sustainability. A very small number of functional ASW or recce birds may have no application against fighters, or as direct strikers, but consider the effect they can have in the maritime space, or for targeting/directing artillery.