Achieving Space Superiority
September 24, 2025
Watch the Video
Read the Transcript
This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI. Please report inconsistencies to comms@afa.org.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to today’s panel on space superiority. I love that we can say that now, space superiority. Our Chief of Space Operations, General Saltzman, has declared that space superiority is the Space Force’s prime imperative, and that the Space Force will do whatever it takes to control the space domain. Achieving this reality requires seamless integration across the Space Force’s field commands and service components. Today, we have with us the commanders responsible for the end-to-end process that together enable space superiority. First, I’d like to introduce Lieutenant General David Miller, Rock, who is the Commander of Space Operations Command. Great to have you with us, General Miller. General Doug Schiess, from the US Space Force’s space, and we’re going to talk about what that means, I think, at some point today, and supporting the combatant side of the Space Force. Great to have you with us, General Schiess. And certainly, last but not least, General Jim Smith from the Space Training and Readiness Command. I love this. And we’re giving them all awards later, so stick around. It’s great. And, you know, I’m so glad to have General Smith with us this year, because he kicks off everything that flows down here through the organized training equipped to the combatant commanders. So it’s a great panel. And while we go ahead and get started, and I’m going to, General Schiess, I’m going to start with you. You know, the Space Force recently released its space warfighting framework that really dives deep into what it will take to achieve space superiority. Could you describe how having this common taxonomy and plan, or framework, really, how it helps the Guardians work together seamlessly to actually achieve space superiority?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Hey, General Chilton. Sir, thanks for your mentorship over the years. Congratulations on your lifetime achievement yesterday. It’s awesome. And you’ve been a huge proponent to the space community. And so thanks for doing this today. And thanks to my colleagues here for doing that. Sir, the space warfighting framework, what it does for our Guardians is it gives them, as you said, the taxonomy, the lexicon on the ability to talk about how we engage in the joint force. And so some people would say how we help the joint force. No, we are the joint force. We are a part of the joint force, and we have to have the same language, the same communications to do that effectively. And so specifically within the space warfighting framework, a couple of things that come out are some of the space truce that are out there, that we have to, one, be able to defend our assets in space, and we have to be able to protect the joint force from space-enabled attack. And that is something that we do at S4S each and every day. And that’s that protect, defend, and deliver the mission that we have to do. So then it gets into what are the kind of things that we talk about so that when we do work with our joint force partners, that they know and they can understand what we are doing to help them and be a part of their force. So for instance, we’re going to talk about space superiority. That’s the title of this talk. But actually getting in, what does that mean? The ability to operate on the timing and tempo and the scheme of maneuver that we want to and deny the adversary or potential adversary the ability to do that. So we have to have that same language to get after it. Some of the things that we talk about that is space control. Well, what is space control? That’s the ability to do the things that we want to do and make sure that we have the domain that we have to do that. How do we do that? Orbital warfare, electromagnetic warfare, cyber warfare, and specifically in orbital warfare, there’s different ways that we have to do it. And we’ve been shy to talk about some of those in the past, but we have to have effectors. We have to have the ability to maybe do kinetic attack. We have to have the ability to use radio frequencies to attack. We have to have the ability to get after from a directed energy. And so having that framework and that ability to talk helps us when we work with my colleagues in US Space Command as they come from the other services and how do we interact with them, but also as we work with the other Space Force components. So it gives us the language. It helps Jim train the folks. It helps Rock get them prepared. And it just kind of sets the framework for us, sir.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Terrific. Thank you. General Miller, did you want to add anything?
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
The other thing I would say is a little bit more than just the terms of reference. It really defines the minimum concepts that every planner must account for that we present as a part of each combat unit of action. So you got to remember, and I’ll talk about it a little bit once we get to Space Force generation, but now our model is fundamentally different. We don’t just present crews and account for them as if they’re doing a duty shift each day. The team has to have a set planning function tied directly to the operational level for General Shess. And they have a list of considerations now that’s beyond just safely executing satellite communications as an example. They have a list of expectations associated with indications and warning with a threat, proximity of counter space system to their aspect, their ability to operate through a denied environment. Those are things that I think the Space Force fighting framework gives to every one of our leaders now. And as Jim produces them, whether it’s through the officer training course or someplace else, now they have a common, not just a lexicon, but they have a common expectation. So that when we go out and look at them, evaluate them, and train them to standard, we have a common framework in that sense. So it’s more than just words on paper. It is the minimum standard for every planner that’s in the United States Space Force.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Great. And by the way, it’s an unclassified document that should be read by every Guardian and anyone who wants to understand how space is going to integrate into the joint force. You can find it online, and I commend it to everyone to read. It’s a great, great piece of work. But, you know, even as the Space Force has started to shift posture to prepare for space as a warfighting domain, it still relies on a lot of decades-old assets, particularly in the ground infrastructure. That comes to mind immediately. General Schiess and General Smith, what capability gaps have you identified that would be particularly useful to fill in the near term?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Yes, sir. So, Jim, I’ll go first, if you don’t mind. You know, I was listening to the last panel, and I like to say, and my folks joke with me a little bit, is I just want more. I want more things. You know, as the warfighter, I want more. And so then I can categorize some of those. But specifically, when we talk about effectors and we talk about that ability to do orbital warfare and the ability to do that, I need more fires. I need the ability to deny, degrade, disrupt our potential adversaries so that they can not attack our forces and they cannot attack our homeland. And so we have to have those forces. We have to have those munitions. We have to have those fires. So that would be at the top of my list. One of the greatest things about having multiple four-star bosses is when they agree, and General Saltzman and General Whiting both agree that we need more fires. And so that would be my first capability that we need to continue to do. And then, sir, as you know better than probably anybody, to actively engage in our domain, we have to know our domain. And so I need more space domain awareness. And the teams are bringing on some great things. DARC is coming on, Silent Park are others, but we need to be able to go from, hey, the catalog of yesterday to we are sensing all the time and we know when something is happening and we know exactly what they are intending to do or where they’re intending to go so that we can be there before them and take actions. And then lastly, the command and control and the communication systems to be able to get after that so that General Miller and I can get mission command down to the lowest level. And I know we’re gonna talk about that a little bit later, but we have to have that from all levels, operational level at the level where, I’m working with General Whiting at the strategic level down to that combat crew commander and his team that’s on the floor, her team that’s on the floor, all the way up and down. We have to have those systems so that we can effectively use mission command.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. And General Smith on the training and test side.
Maj. Gen. Jim Smith:
Yeah, General Chilton, thanks. And thanks for having me on this panel. It’s an honor to be here with you and with probably the two strongest war fighters I’d say we have in our service. So it’s great to have the opportunity to share the stage with them. As we talk about warfighting, really at the end of the day, our job as a department is to ensure we have the capabilities and the people that can deter a war and if we need to, to win. So as we look at the STARCOM mission, ultimately, and I’m not gonna talk specific gaps, but I think the gap or the area that we’re continuing to develop is that combat credibility. Are our Guardians combat credible? Are the systems we have combat credible? A lot of times I think people equate STARCOM with Air Education Training Command and they think only about that side of the mission. And it’s important we have two deltas, Delta 1 and Delta 13 that are focused on training and education. And they’re driving hard to make sure the Guardians we produce are combat credible. But we equally have an important mission which is making the systems the SSC provides are combat credible so when we hand them to General Miller and he presents them to General Schiess, they can achieve the combat missions that they’ve been assigned or the tasks that they’ll be asked to do as those mission sets to include filling some of the gaps that General Schiess talked about. So we have two deltas, Delta 11 and Delta 12. They provide ranges to do that testing and training. They do the testing and training to make sure the systems are indeed combat credible. And then Delta 13 discusses or assesses, they provide war games, they provide doctrine, they look at how we can use the systems, how we can integrate the Guardians and the systems together in a war winning and warfighting function. So that’s a high level of what we’re getting after and look forward to continuing to partner with these gentlemen to fill those gaps.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. The Space Force has also been developing its force generation model with the idea that Guardians will be able to rotate on and off mission console to train in simulators against realistic aggressors and participate in war games or COCOM level exercises with the ultimate intent of having the chance to prepare for high intensity space conflict and also to show our joint force how space will intersect and support and need to be supported in joint warfare. General Miller, how is your command involved in implementing and refining this rotational model?
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Yes sir, thank you, I appreciate that. I think as the lead for force generation for the service, I break it down into really four things that we do for force generation. The first is we owe General Schiess and all the other service components to be task organized for units of action in order to be ready to do the job. That means that depending on the requirements he’s given me or Jake Middleton or one of the other commanders has given, that we task organize the force element, whether that’s a combat squadron or a combat detachment, particularly sized with the right people in order to do the job. The second thing I owe them is they’re combat trained to the standard that they define. That is directly tied to the Secretary of War’s war plans that we have and also tied to any unique requirements Doug anticipates at the time of that cycle that they’d be committed or any other commander anticipates. The third is that they’re optimally equipped and fielded with the latest capability that I can give them. Now that I has a lot of we behind it and that may be one of the product centers, whether it’s Kelly Hammett at Space Rapid Capabilities Office getting support from the National Reconnaissance Office or General Garrant, but that fielding process is also something that comes through SPOC because I am the decision authority for fielding systems. And then the last piece is they are all synchronized and certified to the standard that each of the components clarifies is the minimum I have to meet. And if there are any degrades, I have a direct discussion with them and say, I can’t get there here for this reason, here’s what we’ve done to mitigate it. That said, each one of those things, task organized, combat trained, optimally equipped, and then synchronized in their certification, but they are presented as a combat team. And I think that is a big distinction from where we were trained in the past. If when you were the commander of Air Force Space Command and I was at Buckley, we might have a master task list associated with safely operating the space-based infrared system. It didn’t have combat training as a requirement, I didn’t have to prove I could do it through a lazing event or another counter space system operating in proximity, and I certainly didn’t have to work with the Space Domain Awareness Enterprise, a targeting squadron, and/or an effector who’s gonna defend me and demonstrate that my mission essential task can accommodate every one of those practical units. That’s what I owe Doug now when I present that. The key is it was operated in multiple phases. They task organize and train as an individual end unit. The second phase is their mission area. Missile warning and tracking is a perfect example. What you saw happen last year in Iran is a direct result of the mission area training that they have now. None of these weapon systems were designed to operate alone. But if you recall, we didn’t stipulate a requirement for them to train together or operate on common mission essential tasks. Now, whether it’s an orbital bombardment system or being worried about, in this case, intermediate range ballistic missiles, every unit is focused on training to the same scenario and standards, and I present them as a certified team. And then the last piece is the integrated team. And this is where you’ll see the biggest growth in what we’re calling SPAFFORGEN 2.0 over the next year. And that is not just integrated across the tactical units that we give to Doug. That’s integrated across the Joint Force. So actually, just yesterday, I was at dinner with the acting commandant of the United States Coast Guard and working through what are the training evolutions we can put into the integrated warfighting phase where we directly tie his units. His big concern was about SATCOM and surveillance from space. I told him, “Sir, we can train to that standard. “The key is I need a partner in order to do that.” And his three is gonna come to our weapons and tactics conference that we have here next month in order to work through some of those TTPs that we have. I think this has been a watershed moment in the approach of how we develop and generate forces. But more importantly, I think the commanders are more satisfied than they’ve been in the past with the capability of these Guardians and Airmen that we are presenting as a part of these teams. I think that’s the future of where we’re heading and SPAFFORGEN 2.0 is gonna really dial up the content and frequency of the training evolutions as well as the partners that we’re bringing to bear in each one of those combat training cycles.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Great, you brought up the past and I also remember back in those days, there were no simulators.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Exactly right.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Our crews trained on console with operating satellites.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Exactly right.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
And are we getting the simulations that we need so we can test them with scenarios and things like that offline when they’re not on console?
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
We are getting better. I’m not satisfied yet, but that’s not what I’m paid to be is satisfied. Jim Smith is doing a Herculean job to help develop the test and training infrastructure as he mentioned a moment ago that’ll allow us to train to the warfighting O-planes that we have. I would say that where we might not have a simulator, that doesn’t mean there’s no training evolution that can occur in order to meet a knowledge or proficiency level as a unit or someone else. So they are doing things like rehearsals, TTXs, and there are some live events we’re able to work in and around Doug’s battle rhythm for most of the forces I give to him in order to get there that are getting us there. Jim has specific requirements for me though. The key requirement for us for test and training infrastructure is the ability to simulate blue to the maximum extent, emulate the threat to the maximum extent, and do it across multiple units training together to a common standard. That distributed training environment is one that Jim is working on building for us. We demonstrated it in the last exercise focused on the Resolute Space. We’re gonna build it out over the next year or two, but that’s why we have a thing called the OTTI Board of Directors. Is we sit with Jim, he prioritizes the requirements, and then his team is working hard in order to deliver that capability to us.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Well you brought it up, let’s jump right into OTTI, another acronym that we need to become familiar with. General Smith, STARCOM has been developing the operational test and training infrastructure to create realistic training environments where Guardians can sharpen their skills against virtual threats. And I would assume this is not just an initial qualification training, but also at the unit level where you do ongoing training and evaluation, which is equally important. Space superiority will certainly require a rapid decision making against sophisticated adversaries, oftentimes while relying on imperfect information. How is OTTI helping prepare Guardians for the real world fight, and how does it connect to the forces presented to US Space Command? Do they train against a cadre of aggressors who actually study and emulate adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures? Could you enlighten us a little bit in this area?
Maj. Gen. Jim Smith:
Sure, thanks General Chilton. And I listened to the session before this, and then I was just listening to General Miller. I took command two months ago, and I think about eight times in these two sessions there’s things that I’ve been told I need to do. So apparently there’s a lot on the STARCOM plate, but we’re up for the challenge, and we look forward to getting after it. Specifically to OTTI, operational test and training infrastructure. This is the foundational layer for everything we need to do that I talked about in my previous answer. In order to have credible Guardians and combat-credible systems, we gotta have an infrastructure against which they can train and an infrastructure against which we can conduct our testing. So we have a great partnership with what is now System Delta 81, run by Corey Klopstein. I probably should clarify just a little bit. I think over the last couple years we had an organization called OTTI, which was run by Corey, is now System Delta 81. We would say, hey, how is OTTI preparing us to execute these missions that you just talked about? And we would immediately default to this thought of the organization. It’s not an organizational question, it’s an outcome question. What is the outcome that Corey and team is driving with the help of STARCOM and SSC and this broad integrated team to get after these outcome we need? General Miller hit, I think, on the outcomes in one sense. When I took command, CSO gave me some priorities. In those priorities are three outcomes specific to OTTI. One is blue simulation capability. A second is red threat emulation capability. And a third is the ability to integrate all that, as he said. So with Corey’s help, we’re working to get after those. There’s a range that we’re building, both a physical and a digital range. We’re building a space range, a cyber range, and an AW range that helps us get both the blue and the red integrated into exercises and war games. And then we have an aggressor team, which is actively involved in many of those activities to play that threat emulation and threat actor so that our Guardians, our Guardians don’t need to be able to respond in a benign environment, be able to respond to a thinking adversary, and that’s what we’re helping to train them to do. That’s terrific. And you brought up test environment as well, which is something else we were lacking in in the past. And how’s that moving forward? Yes, moving forward, but also a lot of work to do, as General Miller said, on the training side as well. We need, and this is where I said, we both need physical ranges and digital ranges. There’s a lot of tests that we need to do that maybe we don’t want to do in an environment where it can be openly observed, or we just don’t have the capability to execute in an open and real-world environment. And so the digital ability to simulate these test activities is gonna be critical.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Very good, thanks.
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Hey, sir, could I follow up to the SPAFFORGEN real quick? Just, General Miller said this, but I want to emphasize it. I don’t think we’ve made this significant of a change in how we present forces to combatant commanders in my 33 years of doing this. And so his team prepares combat squadrons and combat crews with combat squadron commanders and enlisted leaders that then have the responsibility to support whatever combatant commander or service component that they work for. And so we have worked together. We both sign a space operations duty order that says these are the combat squadron commanders and combat enlisted leaders. He and his SEL, me and Chief Timmerman, we meet with them beforehand. We talk about the standards that they have to have to be able to do it. And we know that there’s a force-generating squadron that’s right there that can help them, but they understand they are it. And we have been in combat. We have seen, we can talk a little bit later about Operation Midnight Hammer, and we can talk about the attacks against Qatar, but these folks have been tested. But his folks train, he briefs the CSO and then shows me that they’re ready. I then brief General Whiting that we are ready for them to go into their deployment or employment in place. And so it’s incredible. And we are pushing that mission command down to the lowest level. When you were the commander of strategic command, I’m not sure you, you probably would have been happy, but multiple people in between you would not have been happy if I had told you that during a global integrated exercise, I had given, delegated down to a captain to make decisions on NC3 satellites on whether that captain could move that satellite to save that satellite. Back in the day as squadron commanders, we wouldn’t have been able to make that decision. And so this is a new thing, and the teams are responding, and they like the fact that they are war fighters and that we are getting after the mission.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Well, in a contested environment, you don’t have time to staff that decision. And so it’s refreshing to hear that those authorities are being trickled down to the right levels. Fantastic. You know, you kind of preempted my next question. I was gonna ask how this handoff works from General Miller’s command of, you know, preparing the forces, presenting the forces to you, and then how it hands off to you. Is there anything you’d add on that? Is there a transition? Is there an order? Is it just, yeah, maybe help clarify that for the audience.
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Yeah, he gets his team ready. His combat squadron commanders, enlisted leaders, go through a training course. I mean, that was one of the concerns, like what prepares this person to be a combat squadron, they’re much younger than our force generating squadron commanders. So we work together on what that looks like, and then we jointly sign, or he would with another service component if he was given them capability as well. We jointly say, these forces, these combat squadron commanders, enlisted leaders, are ready to go in to their employed in place deployment. And so we work through that. I think the thing starts with, and he said it a couple times, we, I have to give him good requirements. So we develop a unit prep message that says, hey, to be in S4S, to be under US Space Command, these are the things that I need him and him to train so that they’re ready to go. And then what I look at is, what is my combatant commander asking me to do? And so here are the threats that are out here. This is a classified document. Here’s the things that we think in the next six months that our potential adversaries are going to do. And so I need you to train to that level because in the next six months, these are the things that they may see. And then he goes out, prepares them for that. And then afterwards, we have to evaluate, how did they do? And then I have to provide that back to him. And so it’s a symbiotic relationship that we keep working on. We’re almost two years into this now. And so I think it’s going to continue, as he said, SPAFFORGEN 2.0 is going to take us to the next level. And then as we get more capabilities that also go to our other service components that are out at the geographic combatant commanders, he has to, unfortunately, he has to do that too because he has to work with them. And then we also work with them. So I think we’re on the right path and we’ll continue to evolve.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Can I just say one thing, sir?
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Sure.
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
I want to clarify, it’s an ongoing thing. So I absolutely, usually it’s a briefing Doug and I have where I’ll walk through each unit of action that he’s getting, where we see them across their mission essential tasks. If he’s got some big event that he wants surge capacity, we’ll plus up the unit of action in some sense. We did that, obviously, for Iran. Doug needed more capacity to be able to respond to the missile warning and tracking challenge we knew was coming on the horizon. We plussed up in a couple areas to do that. But we talk four or five times a week. So while we absolutely have a culminating certification event, I sign a document to the service chief saying, “Here’s their readiness and degrades “and what I’m doing to mitigate those.” This is an ongoing discussion. So if even during the, ’cause you never can understand and predict everything an adversary is gonna do, but even if there’s a late notice or late break and launch, a threat activity that’s happened on orbit, if he needs more, we dial in to give him more. And that’s why the key separation. And the last point is, is these units of action are led by, usually it’s O3s, sometimes it’s lieutenants. It’s a best athlete program. There was a lot of hesitation when Doug and I said, “We just need to power this down to the same person “who would be the crew commander on the crew “with their crew chief.” And I think they have demonstrated a level of performance in their development that I think has outshined what anybody thought they would be able to do. And frankly, they give me feedback and Doug feedback every time they rotate through. So we get to hear what they need in order to get better.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Great. Just put a ribbon around this topic for me anyway. So I grew up in the air domain where we had, after you got your initial qualification training at F4 training school or F15, then you went to your unit and then you had to get mission ready. And so you had another test to pass, training and test to pass.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
That’s correct.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
And then the wing, the organization that was gonna deploy and fight the squadrons were all evaluated by higher headquarters in a thing called the operational readiness inspection. I don’t know if we have ORIs anymore, but there was all these levels of certification of readiness and you talked a bit about this, but is the lexicon, the lexicon’s probably different, but.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
It’s different, but it’s analogous. At each one of those phases, whether it’s the unit phaser, the mission area phase at the Delta Commander, or at my level at the integrated warfighting phase, there are discrete certifications that occur and assessments of their performance and proficiency with mitigation steps that must be accomplished. And the goodness of it is it helps inform Jim. So if we see gaps and I can’t train to a proficiency level for some reason, that’s it. But you gotta also remember, you know, Space Force is about 68 different bespoke weapon systems. Some of them have a really good fidelity trainer. Many may not in some cases, and almost none of them yet, although we just started it, are networked to a level of proficiency. So there’s no IQT that’s separate from the force generation squadron. Each commander owns, but that’s also part of the concept. Each commander owns training for them. Training isn’t a mission, it’s an element of readiness within Space Operations Command, and each commander owns their own destiny in producing the Guardians or Airmen that they need in order to get the job done.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. You know, also in the warfighting framework, it emphasizes space as being, space operations being global, which I think we all recognize, but it can’t be said enough, and multi-domain. I mean, we rely on cyber for space and other parts of the domains, geographic domains for sure. General Schaaf, to be successful, your forces have to operate in multiple geographically dispersed operations, both at the unit level and at the operational center level, then coordinate with other combat commands. So what does Space Force’s space relationship, what does that relationship look like with the other space components across the other COCOMs, and in addition to the service components beyond US Space Command?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
It’s hard, so we do that each and every day, and so I’ll kind of bend it into three areas. One is general whiting, much like in the air side, we pick a CFAC, or even in the maritime, a CFMIC, or on the land, a CFLIC. He has designated the S4S commander, myself, as the combined joint force base component commander. So across all of his service components, I have to bring them together to be able to see to in his AOR, and so whether those are Marforce Space, Marines that are doing space domain awareness, or other things, or NAV space, or even Air Force space, they have some capabilities that we work with too, and then bringing them together. So we have to do that across the whole AOR, and then you mentioned cyber. My good buddy, General Hensley from 16th Air Force, who is AF Cyber, a component to US Cyber Command, but has a responsibility to support US Space Command. We have to work together to make sure that we can do that for General Whiting. So how is Cybercom and that component helping us? We want to make sure we’re not duplicating efforts, we’re not doing that, and so we work together on that. One of the ways we do that is I have Space Operations Control Authority, and we have a Space Operations Control Order that says, hey, if you’re gonna operate in General Whiting’s AOR, including the service components that are out at the other geographic commands, or tests, or other things that are happening in there, you’ve gotta coordinate with the SOCA, you gotta coordinate with us to make sure that we, one, know what’s going on, and then we can look at the geopolitical atmosphere that’s out there, hey, this might not be the right time to do that in this area, let’s do it over in this other area or let’s hold that off for a time. So we have to do that across, and then I’d say, sir, working with the other service components who are out there, the Space Force is small but mighty, and they don’t have a lot of folks that are out there with them, but they are the voice for space to that geographic combatant commander, and so then I have to support them from all of the global stuff that we do. We talked about missile warning, how do we provide missile warning down to that, so that geographic commander knows that they’re gonna get what they need when they need it, but he’s also got a space person right there to talk to. And then lastly, sir, I talk about our allies, and so we work with our allies. Right now, one of my deputies is a Canadian Brigadier General, and so that’s a part of multinational force Operation Olympic Defender, we have those folks right there in the CSPOC, the Combined Space Operations Center with us, and they’re working together. And then what I’d also say, sir, we’re starting to do operations. You probably have heard that we’ve had a US-UK bilat operation in geosynchronous orbit that we just accomplished a little while ago. We did one with France in the past, and we’re gonna do another one, and that is continuing to happen, where you’re gonna see more of those, part of multinational force Olympic Defender, but working together. That’s across all domains, across all geographic combatant commanders, and bringing that all together, synchronizing that, so in the General Whiting’s AOR, we are showing that we are ready to fight tonight, and today’s not the day to take on the United States.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
That’s great. Amen, amen. Well, this is, just in my mind, this is so important, how you align authorities and responsibilities. Orders matter, and that structure, lines and dashed lines, all that really matters. Otherwise, we’ll be in a position of fratricide, in the electronic warfare spectrum, particularly. And so, you laid that out very clearly. Thank you for that. Now, we’re starting to finally achieve the vision of a resilient space architecture. In fact, I think in this year, we’re adding 100 satellites in 2025. 100, yeah, 100 satellites. That’s amazing, to lower the orbit, to enhance our resilient architecture. And this one’s for you, General Smith. Is this gonna change anything in the way, this, these large constellations, this’ll be the first of several, is it gonna change any way you have to train people? And then, for General Miller, how you have to operate.
Maj. Gen. Jim Smith:
Thanks, General Chilton. Take this in a little bit different direction, but related. So, I just came from being the Vice Director of the Joint Staff on the J-7, and had an opportunity to work for General Dag Anderson, now the AFRICOM commander. And his responsibilities, and the J-7’s responsibilities, were to build the joint warfighting concept, and think about how we’re gonna fight differently, moving forward in the future. Given things that are changing, such as the proliferated constellations that we’re dealing with in the low Earth orbits. But there’s any number of other areas that are driving changes to the character of warfare. So he had a book that he often referred to, “A Strange Defeat” by a Frenchman, Mark Bloch, written in the ’40s, where he was assessing why the French lost in that era. And there was a quote, and I bring this all up, to bring this quote forward, that General Anderson would always use, and I carry it with me now, ’cause I think it really indicates what we have to do here. And the Frenchman, Mark Bloch, would say, his conclusion was, “Our own minds were too inelastic “for us to ever admit the possibility “that the enemy would move with the speed “which he actually achieved.” General Anderson would then say, “Hey, we have to think differently.” And to answer your question a little more directly about how this impacts training, things like resilient architectures, things like proliferated LEO, they really require our Guardians to think differently than we ever have in the past. And this is one of the reasons that we drove to the officer training course, that we graduated for the first time here in August. A year long, where we’re looking at multi-domain operations as opposed to just making a space operator, a cyber operator, an Intel operator. All these Guardians get trained in space, cyber, Intel acquisitions, so that they can understand and move at the speed that we’re gonna have to move in this domain, given the threats that we’re gonna face.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. The space warfighting framework also discusses achieving space superiority at a time and place of our choosing. So everything keeps moving up there in space, unfortunately, so it’s not like you can isolate it easily. But it’s clearly a more nuanced and limited scope than trying to achieve total and continuous space supremacy. General Schiess, could you describe for us how space control might be localized in orbital space and time, and how that would impact the timing and tempo of support to the joint terrestrial forces?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Yes sir, so you talked about operational plans, and so we have operational plans from US Space Command, to if we get into a specific conflict, those are nested with the combatant commanders operational plans for maybe the Indo-Pacific, or the European, or even the AFRICOM, or Central Command Theaters. And so we have to make sure that we have, we have developed a joint space operations plan to be able to get after that. One of the things in there, especially our potential adversary of China, who is building a red kill chain that can target our forces at distance that we have never seen in the past. And not just target them, but actually action against them. And so when I think of my colleagues, and my sisters and brothers on aircraft carriers, 5,000 men and women of the United States out there, they are depending on us to be able to make sure that we can deny, degrade, disrupt, and even if we have to damage or destroy that red kill chain, so that they can get in and do their mission. Those are brave sailors that wanna go after and get the mission, and we have aircraft, we have bombers, we have fighters that we have to also be able to do that. So then we have to take the kit that we have today, and the things that we have to do, and look at how can we make that more effective for them to get into the fight. And so, I can’t talk about it at the highest classification levels, but we have to find space superiority that we can give them for periods of time so that they can get after. And we talked about multi-domain operations. That’s working with my other service components from US Space Command to be able to provide them. That really gets down to the timing, and sequencing, and scheme of maneuver has to be so together that our operation centers have to be working so that they know now is the time for me to get that carrier in, do the missions I have to do, and get out. It is very difficult, sir, but we have to find the ways to be able to do that. And then, as I said earlier, we go back to the gaps. I need more of the kit to be able to do that so that our bombers, our tankers, and our carriers, our DDGs, all of them can get to the fight so that we can win.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
General Miller, did you want to add anything? Thank you, General Schiess.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Only thing I’d add, sir, is a good example of this, you know, localized for a period of time is Midnight Hammer. And so in prep for that, you know, it probably goes underreported, but there was a lot that happened from the space warfighting infrastructure in order to facilitate that. So much so that last month, the 509th Operations Group Commander came out to Peterson to talk to the teams, whether that was the NAVWAR team that was supporting them, ensuring, you know, GPS-enabled weapons can arrive on target, or the Electromagnetic Warfare Team that’s providing covering fires in order to support the ingress and egress of B-2s. You don’t have to have that all the time everywhere. Sometimes you’re doing it discreetly, and particularly in this case, you’re doing it at a level of deception that you’re trying to facilitate a very discreet operation occurring on a very specific timeline with very short and constrained ideas of what we need to do for accuracy. I think Midnight Hammer was obviously a very good success in that way, but it is the first time we’re able to say, you know, there were electromagnetic warfare forces employed in association with that mission, task organized, trained, and equipped, specifically focused on ensuring those B-2s got in and got out at the time, space, and place of our choosing. This is the point. When the U.S. military focuses on something, God help you. And right now, I think the U.S. military is focused on an integrating space in a way that we just never seen before, and that’s really, I think, what Doug was talking about.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Terrific. I’m sure the missile warning guys were tuned up, too. I mean, the whole Space Force was tuned up for that event. It was a great joint air and space operation, actually.
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
You know, sir, that shows how we worked with those other combatant commanders. And so, Colonel Putman, who I think is retiring in a couple weeks, we spent some significant quality time together getting prepared for Operation Midnight Hammer so that we could bring the forces together at the right timing and sequence. So when the president said, hey, go ahead and execute, we were ready to do that. And so, it wasn’t just off the, you know, hey, we’re gonna do this tomorrow. We had to make sure that we were ready to do that and provide the forces, as you said, globally, to make sure that those B-2s could do what they needed to do.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Terrific. We have time for one more question, so this’ll be quick. The Space Force’s competitive endurance calls for responsible counter-space campaigning. And just to be clear, does this mean we should seek to preserve the space domain from all debris generating effects as we attempt to achieve and maintain space superiority? Or should we treat the space domain like every other domain and just consider debris creation as collateral damage and take that into the risk calculus of which weapon you’re gonna use and not constrain ourselves? We’ll just go down the line real quick.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Well, thanks, sir, for the easy question to wrap us up in 30 seconds.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
No, and I ask this ’cause it gets back to the great point about first principles, which is make sure the carrier doesn’t get attacked.
Lt. Gen. David N. Miller, Jr.:
Exactly. I’ll just summarize it just with the time left to say that just like any other joint military operation or combined force military operation, collateral damage, in this case to your analog, is exactly something we consider, but ultimately the design of the plan is focused on delivering an effective outcome to the Secretary. We will obviously plan and communicate where there is risk, identify a level of surety effect, and that’s where the Space Warfighting Framework comes into play. We’ve considered all these items that are accomplished in our planning process and we’re able to demonstrate how surety of effect, and then it’s up to the national security decision makers to make a decision of do you want this level of surety that may come with a kinetic employment, or are you comfortable with this level of surety that gives us another option? It is just like any other military operation. Of course we are focused on limiting any debris in every military planning operation. This is our domain too. But the simple truth is we have to offer options to the President and the Secretary, and they want the best military advice that gives them the surety of effect all the way to the risk that must be accomplished.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. General Schiess, any comments?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Sir, I would just maybe add to that a little bit that as I talked about the gaps at the beginning, I need space fires to be able to do the mission, and I need them to be able to deny, degrade, disrupt, and I want to have a peaceful domain that we can use because the quality of life of the United States and our allies need space. And so I want to be able to do that, and we have to find a way to do that to be able to get after the mission.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
And that fourth D, destroy?
Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess:
Yes, sir, if called upon by the President of the United States, then yes.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Very good, thanks. Anything else to add, General Smith?
Maj. Gen. Jim Smith:
Sir, I would just reemphasize two points. One, I think the model is correct that we should have just assessed it like any other domain and assessed collateral damage, but we need to remember collateral damage in this domain is global collateral damage potentially, and also impacts us who have a heavy reliance on the domain, as General Schiess said. And then I would just end, thanks for this panel. Important to remember, we’re part of the joint force as we started the panel with, and ultimately the goal is that we enable the joint force to win.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.):
Great, thanks gentlemen. This was a terrific panel. How about a round of applause, ladies and gentlemen?