|
We look at space support like oxygen. If you have it, you take it
for granted. If you dont have it, its the only thing
you want.
So said James G. Roche, then Secretary of the Air Force, at the
Air Force Associations 2004 Los Angeles National Symposium,
which commemorated the Air Forces 50 years of involvement
in military space and missile activities.
Speakers noted that the service has come a long, long way from
the days when it was racing to counter the Soviets early in the
Cold War. Space is no longer a mysterious entity whose value has
to be sold to top Air Force and Pentagon officials.
Secretary James G. Roche
As Roches comment made plain, space systems are now so interwoven
in US military operations that all forces might grind to a halt
without them.
USAF puts the start of its space endeavor at July 1, 1954. On that
date, Lt. Gen. Thomas S. Power, commander of Air Research and Development
Command, ordered the establishment of Western Development Division
(WDD), in Inglewood, Calif., under command of Brig. Gen. Bernard
A. Schriever. WDD became the fountainhead of missile and, later,
space systems.
Today, Air Force operations are on the verge of a grand transition,
said Roche. Some old and tested systems will be left behind. For
example, 2005 will bring the last launch of a Titan rocket after
nearly 50 years of successful operations. The future will belong
to systems such as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, intended
to provide better and cheaper medium-to-heavy lift capacity.
Yet the progression in space systems over the last half-century
has not been as dramatic as it has been in air systems, according
to Roche. Satellites may be more complex, and electronic technology
may be far beyond what was available in 1954, but the Air Force
still relies on a few legacy launch systems and sites.
Youll find in many ways, we are doing business much
the same way as we did 50 years ago, said Roche.
The challenge will be to change the image of space resources as
separate items far removed from Earth. They are as much Earth-bound
capabilities as they are physical assets in space.
Thinking about them in this way means that the first question in
space operations will not be what new technology we can develop.
It will be: What do combatant commanders need that we can provide?
As researchers work on very high altitude aerostats and unmanned
aerial vehicles, the Air Force needs to consider how to bridge the
gap between the atmosphere and space.
The physical differences between space and atmosphere will
always exist, but the operational distinction probably should disappear
over time, said Roche. Youre just talking about
altitude, after all.
Gen. Lance W. Lord
Gen. Lance W. Lord, commander, Air Force Space Command, dedicated
his remarks to the legendary space pioneer, Schriever. As the founding
commander of the Air Force Western Development Division, later the
Ballistic Missile Division, Schriever took the Thor ICBM from concept
to deployment in four years, 1955 to 1959, while simultaneously
working on Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman. At another point, he persevered
with the nations first reconnaissance satellite program, despite
the fact that it failed a dozen times before it launched a success.
We cant contemplate that now, a dozen failures. ...
Were just not that tolerant any more, said Lord.
Schriever may have been one-of-a-kind, but there are still great
people pushing forward in his spirit. Capt. Jeremy Walker of the
2nd Space Operations Squadron, 50th Space Wing, at Schriever AFB,
Colo., is one. Walker and his nine enlisted personnel were on alert,
fine-tuning the GPS constellation throughout the November 2004 US
offensive in Fallujah, Iraqhelping to make sure the marines
who went house to house knew where they were.
Then there is SSgt. Dan Levy, who works on space superiority issues
at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, Calif.
Deployed to Iraq to help train the Iraqi Army in intelligence information,
Levy was riding the second-to-last vehicle in a convoy that was
ambushed from behind. He and his fellow passengers dismounted, took
up defensive fighting positions, destroyed the enemy, and got the
convoy going on its way.
As a result, Levy was awarded the Bronze Star by an Army two-star.
It was the first Bronze Star the general had ever given and it went
to an Air Force NCO, Lord told AFA attendees.
The leadership of key people is helping the space acquisition system
move forward, said Lord. Some may complain that most space systems
are broken in the acquisition process, and indeed, some decisions
made 10 to 15 years ago are today coming home to roost.
But Ill tell you that [Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, SMC
commander] and his team ... are working hard together to make sure
that those chickens dont sit down too long, and were
making chicken stew out of some of them, said Lord.
Looking toward the future, the framework for the space business
will be based on two words: space superiority. The US wants to make
sure it protects the asymmetric advantage it has gained by dominating
the space high ground.
Three items will underpin this superiority, said Lord. The first
will be space situation awareness, the capability to monitor the
medium and see and understand whos out there.
You dont have to be a peer competitor of the United
States to be involved in space operations and to have capabilities,
so its something we really need to think about, said
Lord.
The second foundational item will be a defensive counterspace mind-set.
Space operators cannot assume the medium they are working in is
benign.
Lastly, offensive counterspace will be part of the effort. The
Air Force now has a countercommunications capability that has reached
IOC, with its point being to deny the use of space against US forces.
(See Toward Supremacy in Space, January, p. 22.)
Thats with a reversible effect. But make no mistake
about it, if something happens and troops are getting killed because
somebodys trying to use space against us, we will do more
than [apply] reversible effects, said Lord.
Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold
Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, commander, SMC, reminisced a bit about
the history of US military space programs. Western Development Division
first set up shop in a little schoolhouse in Inglewood in the summer
of 1954, he said. After a short while, the programs budget
began to drift downward, but then the Russians launched Sputnik
in 1957, and back up it went.
I was told by some of the graybeards that, geez, you
know, we used to launch a lot more. Well you did, but they
didnt last as long; and secondly you had a lot more failures,
said Arnold.
Many of todays satellites are lasting 10 and upward of 15
years, the head of SMC pointed out. For instance, GPS-IIR 13, launched
Nov. 6, replaced a satellite that was put up in 1992.
Satellite durability is just one of many successes in US space
development. Another is the reliability and readiness of the nations
ICBMs, even as they undergo major modifications.
Todays Minuteman IIIs maintain about a 99 to 100 percent
alert rate every single day for all 500 of those ICBMs on alert,
said Arnold.
Boosters used to lift satellites into space have been showing tremendous
reliability, as well. As of mid-December, the Air Force was approaching
39 successful launches in a row.
Typically, the service used to launch a rocket only once out of
every 10 attempts. The Air Force has shifted its focus to successful
launches rather than making a schedule. That new focus has saved
four missions.
So to those who complain that space systems are broken and acquisition
is in trouble, Arnold has one thing to say: Look up. The Defense
Support Program warning satellite constellation is the healthiest
the US has ever seen. With 30 operational GPS satellites, the Air
Force has reached the limit of its ground control systems capability.
So when we put the next one up, were going to have
to de-orbit one or put it in silent mode and put it off to the side
or something because we only fly 30, said Arnold. That
is the best we have ever had.
Space and Missile Systems Center still faces challenges, of course.
Among them is the pace of acquisition, which has never been greater.
In 1992, the Air Force was developing 16 major space programs; today
it is working on 32. It is doing so with one-third fewer active
duty personnel, following a decade of turmoil caused by various
acquisition reform efforts.
Overall, the budget has grown from about $3.5 billion in 1992 to
a projected $10.5 billion for 2008.
Thats a remarkable ramp while downsizing the
number of people, so we really need to keep our eye on the
bubble, said Arnold.
Space development is different from aircraft development, after
all. For one thing, it requires much more money up front, early
in a programs life cycle70 percent, as opposed to 27
to 30 percent for air. There is less margin for development error.
There are no taxiing tests, and you cant fly a booster around
the airfield and land it if a warning light goes on. The first time
the Air Force sends a satellite up, its generally an operational
satellite.
Lastly, the Air Force buys space systems in small numbers. If theres
a cost overrun, USAF cant just shrink the size of the program.
We dont have that ability, so we have to absorb that
shock, if you will, said Arnold.
Gen. Thomas S. Moorman Jr.
Gen. Thomas S. Moorman Jr., USAF (Ret.), a vice president with
Booz Allen Hamilton and former AFSPC commander, said that these
are unique and exciting times to be in the space business. The reason:
Virtually every US military space system is in the process of being
replaced.
Aircraft modernization has taken place by decades, with the fighter
force renewed in the 1970s, bombers in the 1980s, and transports
in the 1990s.
In contrast, the entire [space] inventory is being changed
out, said Moorman.
The bad news is that, at the same time, the space acquisition system
is strained. Among its recent challenges have been requirements
creep, underbudgeting, cost-centric decisions, and an erosion in
the experience level of management.
All those have worked together to create some acquisition
problems, said Moorman.
In addition, the sheer pace of change may be outrunning available
funds. The budget is not likely to grow over the next decade, said
Moorman.
What that means to me is perhaps some phasing, perhaps some
tough choices, he said.
At the same time, the US military is dependent on space as never
before, and that reliance is not just for current operations. The
Army and Navy (as well as the Air Force) are proceeding with major
force and equipment development plans that assume the existence
of certain space capabilities.
The bandwidth demands for these systems in the future ...
are beyond belief, said Moorman. What theyre assuming
is that we will come through with laser [communications], and we
will come through on a certain timeline. Thats real dependency.
Space itself is becoming more interdependent, in the sense that
all its sectorsmilitary, intelligence, civil, commercialare
increasingly intertwined. Communications is only the most obvious
example. Some 70 percent of Administration communications for Iraqi
Freedom go through commercial lease lines, for instance. GPS has
become a kind of global utility, crucial not only to national security
but to transportation, safety, and economic growth as well.
It seems clear to me that the management of GPS ... needs
to evolve, said Moorman.
Considering President Bushs vision of a return to space exploration,
launch interdependence is likely to be a hot issue in coming years.
Moorman insisted that the US needs a consolidated vision for access
to spaceit cant afford the four space sectors bumping
up against each other with separate plans.
On surveillance, the military and intelligence sectors need to
look past traditional roles and missions and figure out whats
best for all concerned. One thing they may determine is that space
based radar should be a top priority.
I think [space based radar] is going to be like air-conditioning.
Were going to wonder why we never had it before, and it will
fundamentally change the way we do modern war, said Moorman.
Gen. Lester L. Lyles
Gen. Lester L. Lyles, USAF (Ret.), briefed conference attendees
on the work of the Presidential Commission on Implementation of
US Space Exploration Policy, on which he served. President Bush
appointed the panel to take a new look at the future of the US and
civil space. Their vision was outlined by Bush in a speech at NASA
headquarters in January 2004: to go back to the moon and to go Mars
and beyond.
The President pulled together a commission as a way of trying
to address a viable implementation strategy for doing that,
said Lyles.
The panels work and its recommendations were shaped by the
Defense Department and by the Air Force in particular. While the
connection between returning to the moon and supporting troops in
Fallujah may not be obvious now, it will become more so in the future,
as the commonality between the sectors becomes more apparent, said
Lyles.
This is a national objective. ... It is a national vision
that many, many other agencies need to be a part of, he said.
That degree of effort was the No. 1 recommendation the panel gave
President Bush when it sat down with him last July. It also urged
reinvigoration of the Space Council and an overhaul in NASA culture.
They have to reach out more to the private sector, both for
involvement in technology and development, but also bringing some
resources to help achieve the objectives of what is necessary for
this and anything else in space in the future, said Lyles.
Furthermore, NASA should restructure its centers to more closely
resemble federally funded research and development centers and seriously
consider embracing the management process that the Air Force and
the rest of the Defense Department use for space programs.
System of systems approaches, systems engineering robustness,
systems integration, bringing on lead systems integrators, spiral
developmentall of the things that we are practicing and using
so very well in DOD space and DOD programs in generalare the
kind of things that we have recommended that NASA fully embrace,
said Lyles.
NASA is already adopting some positive management practices. The
agency is trying to develop its own professional space cadre, much
as Air Force Space Command and the other services have been doing.
The Navy has loaned NASA two of its senior personnel for two years
to help manage this new activity. Lyles recommended that the Air
Force consider a similar arrangement, where it would loan space
personnel to NASA and, in turn, take NASA personnel into the USAF
space community as another means to develop professionals in space.
Id love to see the Air Force consider something like
that also, said Lyles.
|
Martins Dictum: Be Fast. Stay
Connected.
Gen. Gregory S. Martin, commander, Air Force Materiel Command,
noted that the entire Air Force acquisition processnot
just space programs or air programsis under significant
scrutiny due to the problems involving the tanker lease deal
with Boeing.
Thats just one of the challenges todays midlevel
personnel will face as their careers progress over the next
10 to 15 years, said the AFMC chief. Another will be threat
projection. Today, global terrorism and small unit insurgency
are planners focuses, but the US military cannot lose
sight of the fact that it must protect the nation against
an array of possible foes.
We dont know in 10, 15, 20 years that we wont
be dealing with a coalition of forces that for one reason
or another has decided to align itself against the United
States, that with the transferability of technology, that
they wont find some sort of asymmetric advantage, some
niche, that could cause us difficulty, said Martin.
In terms of precision power projection, there are a number
of things that the Air Force today doesnt do as well
as it would like. These include constant battlespace surveillance,
tracking of mobile targets, and the ability to react quickly
once mobile targets are spotted.
Martin cited a real world example: At one point during the
combat operations that preceded the fall of Baghdad, US intelligence
thought they had good indications that Saddam Hussein was
conducting some sort of meeting in a restaurant. From the
time a B-1 received orders to target the area, to the time
the restaurant was destroyed, was only 11 minutes.
The problem was that it took 35 minutes for the intelligence
to travel up through the chain of command and the order to
fire to travel back down. Total elapsed time from tip to bomb
release was 46 minutes. The real target, Saddam himself, got
away.
We have to get that knowledge up the channel to the
decision-makers quickly. We have to be able to then make that
decision and execute it very quickly. So thats kind
of what were focused on, said Martin.
Among the capabilities AFMC is looking at to solve this problem
is something that might be called always-on surveillance.
This would be a system of systems, perhaps connecting Predators,
Global Hawks, Joint STARS aircraft, and satellites that could
hand the job of surveillance back and forth, depending on
availability and the hostility of the environment.
We have to have systems that can basically be connected
and be over a place forever so that we can stare and understand
the nature of that battlespace, said Martin.
Then the information gathered would have to be compiled and
presented with unprecedented battlespace digitalization. In
this regard, the military could learn a thing or two from
the entertainment industry about human-friendly displays.
Instead of symbolsMartin called them stickologymodern
3-D screens ought to be able to show colored MiG-25s or F-15s
or whatever so that the average decision-maker could quickly
understand the battlespace picture.
We really have to think carefully about how to present
it so that humans can make decisions. ... We havent
done that as well as we should have, because in the end whats
happening is were presenting huge amounts of information
in the old way, said Martin.
All this needs to be done at unprecedented speedand
followed by immediate action. If the environment is not too
dangerous, that might mean a Predator can spot a target, relay
information, get a decision, and fire a Hellfire, all in a
minute or less. If its a hostile environment, maybe
the answer is hypersonics. Or perhaps it is directed energy,
or space-based kinetic weapons.
Im not sure what the right answer is, but we
have to pursue all of them because were not sure exactly
which one will pay off the fastest, said Martin. |
Peter Grier, a Washington editor for the Christian Science Monitor, is a longtime defense correspondent and a contributing editor to Air Force Magazine. His most recent article, “Airpower and the ‘Long War,’ ” co-authored with John A. Tirpak, appeared in the November 2004 issue.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved.
|