Realistic Training for Space

Watch the Video

---

Read the Transcript

---

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

All right, good afternoon, Warfare Symposium. I’m Kyle “Puma” Pumroy, senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence. It’s my pleasure to moderate this panel, Discussion on Realistic Training for Space. As many of us in the room know, the space domain is unique because all terrestrial war fighting domains depend on it. Meanwhile, it’s a domain that has never truly seen combat itself. Despite this, space has never been more of a war fighting domain. We’ve seen rapid weaponization of space by our adversaries and we know it’s their intent to deny the domain to us. This is our new operational reality and requires guardians to be ready to fight at a moment’s notice, ready to defend the nation and its interests in a potentially protracted conflict. Training for such a scenario drives service unique test and training requirements and events distinct and separate from any other realistic training environments of any other service. Our guardians need these resources for test and training facilities to train like we fight, just like any other war fighter.

However, Space Force has an added nuance of also needing to figure out how we fight for that combat that’s never truly occurred in space and what that means. So to discuss how our guardians train and what needs to be done to enhance their training regime, I’m joined on stage today by Major General James Smith, Commander Space Training and Readiness Command. Now, if there’s STARCOM fans in the house, you’re going to be excited for this one. Next we have Brigadier General Nick Hague, Assistant Deputy Chief of Space Operations, Colonel Gus Rico Carrero, Commander Space Delta 11. And finally, certainly not least, we’ve got Lieutenant Colonel Josh Oiler Print, Commander of 98th Space Range Squadron. Rowdy crowd. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Let’s go ahead and get started. General Smith, we’ll start with you. It’s been three years since CSO released the Space Force lines of effort, number one being fielding combat ready forces. Can you talk about STARCOM’s advancements over the past three years and its support to LOE1?

Maj. Gen. James E. Smith:

Yeah, thanks, Puma, and great to see everybody this afternoon. Unique panel in that we have from a squadron all the way up to fieldcomm commanders, as well as representation from Space Force headquarters. So appreciate being on the stage with these fellow panelists and look forward to the discussion about this important topic from the multiple levels that we’re going to talk about it. As you asked the question about STARCOM and what we’ve done to support CSO’s task or really a line of effort to get after field and combat credible and combat capable and combat ready forces, that’s really STARCOM’s primary mission. As a commander of STARCOM, I have one mission or one responsibility, and that’s to forge the world’s best and most combat credible Space Force. Pretty easy. I think we’ll be done next week, and then I’ll move on to some other responsibility. But really at the end of the day, that’s why we exist and why we were created as Space Force. So we can be combat credible and we can fight and win in the domain when called upon.

To do that from a STARCOM perspective, we really have two major areas where we get after that. One, we make sure guardians are combat credible, and the second is we make sure systems that the Space Force needs are also combat credible and validated and will function as asked when called upon. And so we could probably take, looks like we’ve got 36 minutes left, the 3 years that we’ve only been at command for 4.5 years, and so we could probably take the next 36 minutes talking about everything we’ve done. Kudos to the first two commanders, General Bratton and General Sheba, that really laid the foundation for everything we’re getting after. If you’ll recall, there’s three fieldcomms in the Space Force. Two of them existed in some other forum before we created the Space Force. STARCOM was created from scratch and from different parts and pulled together to form a fieldcomm. So as we look at those two major areas that we have guardian development and capability validation, just a quick summary of some of the major efforts that we’ve gotten after in order to generate combat credible forces for the service.

First, I have to start with Delta 10 because AFA in September, I’d been in the seat about two weeks and I mislabeled and misinformed everybody about Delta 10. So I owe them a double shout out. Delta 10 does our war fighting, our war gaming and our doctrine development. And really that’s the foundation. If we’re going to have a combat credible force, we got to have a combat credible doctrine. In the last three years, they finalized Joint Pub 3-14 and they’ve also worked with NATO to create NATO’s first space doctrine.

And then from a Schriever wargaming standpoint, multiple iterations of that Schriever wargame and other war games to really help us how, as you mentioned earlier, how we’re going to fight in the domain in a scenario where we’ve not really actually done that in the real world, but we often do it in war games so that we can learn from those examples. And then our Delta 1, which has evolved into our accession center, they take some of those lessons and they incorporate them into training so that we can take guardians or other officers, enlisted civilians off the street and turn them into war fighting and combat credible guardians.

I think some of you have heard many of the things we’ve done over the last three years, but a couple of things to highlight from the last year. We created an officer training course where we take new lieutenants and train them in cyber intel and space operations so that they can be combat credible as we give them off to combat forces command to execute missions for the combatant commanders.

We also have created and transitioned … Initially, we were part of the Air Force’s basic military training for our enlisted members. While we still get great support down at Lackland, we’re on a path to create our own course code and to create basic military training for guardians that gets them the knowledge and information they need to be successful guardians. So that’s the trading piece.

And then also on the guardian development side, we have education through Delta 13. A lot of the things they’ve done over the last three years have been to create independent education sources for our guardians, starting with the PME that we have, the professional military education for our mid-grade and senior officers at Johns Hopkins in D.C. And then just this last month, we graduated for the first time our cohort of guardians through our captives leadership course that we recently established down with a partnership at Texas A&M. So they continue to take those guardians from OTC and make them more combat credible and better leaders. So that’s the guardian development piece.

On the capability validation side, we have two Deltas that help us get after that. Delta 11, which I know you’re well familiar with having served as the first commander of that.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

I’m a big fan.

Maj. Gen. James E. Smith:

I was trying to figure out why this whole panel was made up of Delta 11 people. Then I figured out because you were the commander there. But they have the important responsibility and we’ll hear more about it from both the squadron commander and Delta 11 and our Delta 11 commander to run our range and to have aggressors to go out and help both validate our systems and make our guardians more credible and capable. And then Delta 12 is our testers. We heard a little bit about that in the other panel you moderated where we were talking about guardians in space and the space test course. That’s probably the biggest success from a Delta 12 standpoint is this creation of a space test course out at Edwards to help develop guardians that have a test mindset, which is critical given the number of tests that we have to conduct. And as we continue to bring more and proliferate systems into the Space Force, they’re going to be the ones that need to make sure those systems are capable and validated.

I told you I could probably take the whole 36 minutes. Sorry, it probably went a little long, but at the end of the day, what we do at STARCOM, we prepare every guardian, we prove every system ultimately so that we can win the domain. And so look forward to have more conversations about how training can help us get after those missions. Thank you.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Yes, sir. Thanks for that. And thanks for what STARCOM does to build combat credible forces, which requires that realistic training. General Hague, I’d like to move to you. And as the Deputy Chief of Space Operations, you have the incredible task of overseeing the effectiveness of the service’s current operations, onboarding new kit for future operations, which requires its own test plan and its own test infrastructure, and providing realistic training to instill combat credibility into all that. So how does COO go about balancing these tensions and prioritizing between operations and readiness?

Brig. Gen. Nick Hague:

Thanks, Puma. And echo General Smith’s comments. It’s a pleasure to be here today and be part of this panel talking about something that is important and cuts straight to the point of your question, which is how do you balance the tension between operations and readiness? And I’d say that there shouldn’t be any tension. Operational readiness is combat credible capability. And so if we’re delivering units and equipment that are not ready, we’re not actually delivering a credible combat capability. So how do you prioritize that? So the CSO revealed the objective force and where we’re going long term. And so that gives us our long roadmap of how we’re going to get there and the things that we need to do in kind of a time phased development approach.

Short of that and trying to achieve that objective force, the adversary gets a vote. And so we need to make sure as we’re developing these things, a critical component is making sure that it is threat informed. And as we’re developing our systems, as we’re developing our units and we’re training folks up to do the missions that we’re going to need them to do, I need to make sure that it’s a threat-informed, data-driven decision. And so as we develop these capabilities and deliver incremental capability into the hands of guardians, we’re going to adjust fire as we go. And that’s where the prioritization comes into account. How do we change what we thought we were going to need and make it a little bit better? But fundamentally, operational readiness is how we deliver combat credible capability.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Sure. And I think you hit on it that threat base is the big driver, but can you talk to other policy or guidance and direction that helps in driving that or how those threats are taken in to decide where we want to focus on in building our systems?

Brig. Gen. Nick Hague:

So threat’s a key aspect. The other aspect is the approach and the environment that we’re trying to create, the culture that we’re trying to create inside of the Space Force in terms of how we deliver capability. We mentioned tests before. I’ll go back to test in that this idea of integrated tests, we learned lessons from the other services in the way that they developed systems over decades, and that they would develop it, say that the system does what it needs to do in one community, and then in another community, you’d hand that system over and say, “Well, can it do anything in the combat environment?” And sometimes the answer was no. And then there was always this complaint about, well, why didn’t we hear about that years before so that we could have made that change? It would have been a simple change.

We’re putting all of that under one roof. We’re putting the operational test, the developmental test, the contractor test underneath an integrated test force so that I can have a truly integrated test approach to develop that capability. And oh, by the way, by putting operators in the test force, I’m also getting that operational influence way upstream to influence acquisitions. And so that drives our ability to understand, are we delivering on time? Are we going to be able to deliver this? And that helps us adjust fire as we go. So that’s that data-driven, informed approach.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Awesome. Thank you, sir. Colonel Carrero, Rico, in Delta 11, you have a huge span of control, including range squadrons, aggressor squadrons, combat training squadrons, and the weapons school squadron. Meanwhile, as the Vice Chief General Bratton has mentioned, Space Force may double in size over the next decade. So how do you anticipate adapting to that growth while at the same time providing the force more advanced realistic training capabilities and events?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

Hey, Puma, it’s an honor to be on this panel. Thank you for leading the charge and establishing Delta 11 and setting it off on a great path. And it’s an honor to be here with the rest of the panel members and thanks again to AFA. So our mission in Delta 11 is to prepare guardians to prevail in conflict. And we do that through advanced training and tactics, threat replication and combat representative environments. As we have aggregated these missions, we have seen a natural relationship between those missions very similar to the warfare centers and the other services. So as we see the growth in the force, the fact that these missions are together, we’re postured to face that growth. And there’s two main areas where we’re prioritizing as a result of the … Or because we know that there’s going to be growth in the force. One of those is in our people.

So each one of our missions in Delta 11, of which there’s actually 11 four missions within Del 11, is postured for growth. And there was significant investment in years past, and that personnel resources, that manpower is starting to arrive in our formations. We’re also receiving interservice transfers from the Air Force Reserve, such as myself. So those PMA transferees are also joining our formations, and we’re seeing that growth right now, this year, and in the years to come. We’re also focusing on our people, their education, their experiences, and their training, and everything they need to be postured to execute on all those missions so we can prepare Guardians to prevail in the domain.

The other area where we’re focusing and posturing for this growth is infrastructure, and that’s primarily three things. One is the kit, working with SYD81. Corey, I see you in the audience. Thank you for being a great partner. So we can be ready to operate, maintain, and sustain that operational test and training infrastructure, which we have also invested a significant amount of resources over previous years, and that infrastructure is starting to arrive and continues to expand.

We’re also focusing on the actual physical spaces where we’re operating out of. A lot of our facilities at Schriever, for example, were not designed to house state-of-the-art modern SIM capabilities and systems. So we are investing in infrastructure here in Colorado, as well as in New Mexico at Kirtland and other locations to have purpose-built facilities that are able to … Where we can operate this state-of-the-art infrastructure that is coming.

And then the last thing where we’re focusing on is on the actual venues themselves. So we’re working hand in hand with Combat Forces Command to adjust the construct for exercises, because we have to adapt the exercises that we have done in the past to meet the demands of the future, to include looking at new exercise venues that we haven’t developed yet. So our space flags are evolving, our flashpoints, we’re looking at other types of venues. And then along with those venues, developing complex scenarios where we can integrate multiple mission areas. And again, those are all the things that we have to do both on the people side and the infrastructure side to be ready for that growth.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

I think you hit on a lot of it, but can you talk to any kind of new kit or training events you see coming down the pipe that are maybe in works or under consideration?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

Sure. So every single discipline in our mission set is growing, but in the general categories of live, virtual and constructive, live is growing. We actually have satellites that the 98th Space Range Squadron operates to provide that live capabilities. Modern SIM will only get us so far. We actually have to touch real kit to validate our tactics and ensure that we are able to operate and that the tactics are valid in the domain. So on the live side, both in hardware as well as bandwidth, increased bandwidth, different types of bandwidth for electromagnetic warfare, new capabilities are all increasing on the live and as well as cyber.

On the virtual side, maybe we’ll talk later about our digital environment, but on the virtual side, we have a lot of modern same capabilities, and those things are increasing. And we are seeing additional growth and increasing delivery of capabilities for that virtual environment, which is foundational to the ability to do multiple sets and reps at low cost because satellites are expensive and we cannot afford to spend $20 million a pop per satellite.

And then finally, the constructive, that the ability to take multiple mission areas and put them together in a venue is another area that is growing. And that’s both on the digital environment that allows us to bring in multiple types of training systems simultaneously, working with the joint partners to bring capabilities to them so that we can train like we will fight as a joint force, as well as expanding our ability to do exercises with the coalition. So those are all the three main areas that are growing for our mission.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Exciting times for Delta 11. Hey, Oiler, excuse me. There’s been recent news talking about some stuff that you and Delta 11 do with the Space Force upping its game and orbital warfare training using live satellites, maybe getting aggressor satellites and doing things like that. So tell us about your role in that, what you do to provide that today, and what’s the overarching strategy you’re following? What’s the mindset at the tactical level within that strategy?

Lt. Col. Josh Print:

Yes, sir. Well, first of all, it’s an honor to be on the panel with my boss, my boss’s boss, and an astronaut who happens to be a general officer. So my role in this is to do whatever they tell me to do. But no, in all seriousness, as a squadron commander, I have the luxury, the privilege, and the responsibility to sit at the intersection between strategy and tactical employment. And so I have to have the pulse on what the service strategy is and translate that into tactical action. And I have to make sure I understand what the mindset of the guardians is from a training perspective. I will tell you that from my lens, both of those things are there. We talked about in the first question, CSOs, LOE number one of field and combat ready forces. There’s a lot that goes into that. Realistic training is obviously on the short list that goes into that.

But underneath that are what I consider two interdependent levers of readiness. One of them is our Space Force generation model, and the other one is OTTI. And sometimes we get caught up in the devil and the details and the nuanced details of what those are, but at a very broad level, SPAFORGEN is an organizational framework that carves out time and capacity to do readiness generation activities. OTTI is the equipment, the mission-specific devices and trainers, the live ranges and aggressors that is used during that time and capacity carved out by SPAFORGEN. So I think that the strategy is there for sure. I also think that the mindset is there. And when you go to a web tech or you see some of the younger guardians, the captains, the lieutenants, the NCOs, the specialists doing training and exercises, they’ve really internalized kind of a guiding principle from our Space Force Tactics Program, which is this notion that sound tactics can have an outsized impact on operational outcomes, and in some cases can overcome material superiority in a conflict.

The inverse is also true, but that’s the mindset that they’ve internalized and they rely on the acquirers to provide equipment, but they’re strongly focused on tactics because they believe in that mantra. So the strategy is there, the mindsets there. As for my particular role as the commander of the 98 Space Range Squadron, the service has a responsibility to test its new satellites that are going into orbit, and it has a responsibility to train its guardians on their employment. It needs a place to do that, and that’s where the orbital range comes in. And so the 98 Space Range Squadron, for those that don’t know, operates, maintains, and sustains the Space Force’s orbital range. And we have a collection of capabilities that allow us to exploit certain volumes in space and time to satisfy test or training customers.

But three that we have is actually three live satellites, the three live satellites that are under STARCOM that are service-retained and are dedicated as serving as surrogates, whether those are red surrogates for adversary doctrine TTP and employment considerations or gray surrogates for a program office or even blue surrogates just to satisfy different customers. So the mindset’s there, the strategy’s there, and I think the place is there as well.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Is there a number in your head when people say, “What does Space Force need now from the range in terms …” You say you’ve got three. Is there a goal or an objective to what sounds about right for the 98th?

Lt. Col. Josh Print:

Yeah. I mean, I think the demand signal continues to increase over the course of the past year, and we’re young, we’re a small squadron, but it’s increased by like 450%. So just more and more users wanting to come on the range, which obviously drives a demand signal for more kit that we’re going to need. And so it’d be a stretch to say, I’ve mapped out every single one of those customers, prioritized those and know exactly how many satellites that we’re going to need or ground-based capabilities. I just know that it’s going to be a combination of multi-phenomenology, ground-based and space-based capabilities fused into a piece of software that gives us the information that we need to do. One, make range control, knock it off decisions. And then two, provide instrumentation back to our test and training customers.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Fantastic. Let’s start some questions for the panel and we’ll start with one and see who else wants to follow it up. There’s a lot of balancing that must be done for realistic training requirements for orbital warfare, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, global mission operations, all of which have different and distinct training requirements at times. And then there’s establishing the right mix of live and virtual on top of that. So how does the Space Force make prioritization and trade-off decisions to balance the needs of the force? And General Smith, we’ll let you go first and if you have any thoughts on that.

Maj. Gen. James E. Smith:

Yeah. Thanks, Puma. A couple of things just to follow up on some other comments. First, that was a pretty political answer from Josh. Usually when I ask him what he needs, it’s like, “I need more and more.” So nice job, Colonel Print. And second, I wanted to hit the part about growth because I think Enrico hit it from a Delta 11 growth standpoint. If we’re really talking about it and the secretary and the CSO and others have hit pretty hard this week, the fact that we may be looking at significant growth in the Space Force, we have to remember that’s not just growth of our operational community. That’s got to be growth of the institutional force to include STARCOM as well, the range, but also the education aspects, the trainers, everything else. So just want to make sure we flag that for the conversation. Then to your specific question, how do we balance requirements?

Yeah, balance is the right word. As we look at our operational test and training infrastructure, even in the name itself, there’s a balance. So it’s not a training infrastructure or a test infrastructure. It’s an infrastructure you can do and support both test and training. So right there, we have competing priorities at times. And then we also have competing users. Maybe competing is the wrong word, but the requirements that come in from different user communities. And so the way we get after this specifically for the OTTI infrastructure is we have a board of directors, meets roughly quarterly, we’re meeting next week where we bring Combat Forces Command, we bring the 347 from the Pentagon, we bring the, I think the 6 is coming from the Pentagon. We have the System Delta 81 and the SSC community, all those that have a stake in what this infrastructure needs to look like. And we get together to prioritize what we need System Delta 81 to work on next.

And the primary filter for that exercise is mission risk and mission effectiveness and efficiency. So where can we make with another dollar investment the most effective improvement in our training capabilities and our training infrastructure? So at a high level, that’s kind of how we go about it, but ultimately there is a balance that has to be done and a long way to go.

I guess the other thing I’d say on this infrastructure, Nick knows this better than me, but I was recently out at NASA in Houston and the first time I’d been down there and an entire warehouse of physical trainers for every system that I think we’ve ever put an astronaut on. On that same trip, I went out to Edwards and saw the test environment that the Air Force has. And I’m trying to identify where we in the Space Force have our warehouse of physical trainers or our test capabilities that we have at Edwards or Nellis. And that’s what we’re ultimately trying to build with OTTI, but we have a long way to go and that balance is going to be part of it as we work to prioritize.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Anyone else, thoughts on balancing prioritization between additional mission areas, live, virtual, et cetera?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

So I think from our perspective, one of the things that we have discussed internally within Del 11 is the need to focus on the formative purpose of the service, which was to contest and achieve space superiority. So we need to advance our orbital warfare capabilities so that the worst day in space for the enemy is a day that we can actually win and that we can achieve our objectives from a space superiority perspective.

We also need to balance that with the need to modernize the legacy missions that are the things we’re going to take toward tonight. When General Whiting has to go to war tonight, he’s going to take to work electromagnetic warfare, weapon systems and effects. So we need to make sure that those systems are also keeping up with the state of the world and the threat environment. So within Del 11, we’re applying that to our contribution to the bot and all these other different engagements to figure out where we need to spend our resources and our time and our energy, because it’s important that we advance our orbital warfare capabilities while also making sure that we’re bringing with us those legacy missions that we need to be able to conduct. And then we need to integrate in there cyber effects and cyber capabilities, the defense of all of that infrastructure, as well as the intelligence functions and systems as well. Because it’s not just intel professionals, it’s also the systems that they need to use that we want to make sure that they can train and exercise on to be effective in conflict.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

And so Rico, do you feel you’ve got the maneuverability within Delta 11 for … You organize OW, EW cyber, China may not necessarily organize in that way and may do EW orbitally, on orbit. I don’t know if orbitally is a word, but on orbit, they may do EW. So are you structured so that you can cross those mission areas between organizations if you need to present a threat like that, whether it be live or virtual?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

So I think to that question, the phrase, form follows function, I think has become sometimes apparent in our execution of our missions where we have seen that, for example, the aggregation of all these missions, it actually makes sense for our purposes, especially at the scale that Space Force is today. What I see as a natural evolution is that warfare is warfare, and there will be times where there may be cyber enabled orbital effects, orbital enabled cyber effects. It’s just effects. It’s all warfare. So I do believe that over time we’ll see a blending of those mission areas so we can focus more on achieving the effect, whether that’s enabled through electromagnetic warfare, cyber, or some other type of warfare domain that we have yet to discover.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

I just want to do a follow-up for anyone on the panel who wants to go out on a limb. If we were to spitball how close we are to having the realistic training infrastructure we need versus what we have today, how close are we?

Lt. Col. Josh Print:

Sir, I’ll just say, I think we’re making really good progress. I think we’re putting our money where our mouth is. We have the CSOs LOE number one. We have those two interdependent levers of readiness that I talked about. We stood up a PEO for OTTI. I think there’s only six other PEOs in the Space Force. So we’re very focused on that and training and readiness. I think from a prioritization perspective, I won’t opine on the mission areas and say that orbital warfare is the number one mission area to focus on, but we do have to make … We can only afford one OTTI and we have to do both test and training with it. And at the tactical level, specifically for orbital warfare, the way we kind of get around that is live events on orbit are very fleeting.

And so we take advantage anytime we do a live on orbit event to get test objectives out of a training event and get training objectives out of a test event. And the output to both of those activities is tactics development and in the case of test is tactics validation. So I think we’re making significant progress with our test and training infrastructure, and I think that the strategy and the model is there. And I’m excited for what the future holds.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Awesome. That’s great to hear. Thanks, Oiler. All right. We’ll move on to one more panel question. How does the old mantra train like we fight fit for the Space Force considering we’ve never truly fought in space? How does that mantra drive a purposeful ratio of realistic training and tactics development? And General Hague, if you’d like to lead us off on this question.

Brig. Gen. Nick Hague:

Sure. So if we’re going to train like we fight, the ideal is that I would have guardians on an ops floor and they wouldn’t know the difference between engaging with a digital representation, a simulation on the backside of their screens, or if it was real life. That’s what we’re striving for. You’ve got to do that in order to create that sandbox so that I can drive in that threat informed red representation. And then we can start to figure out how are we going to fight? And we’ve got to marry up nice and tight with the intel community so they can let us know their best estimation of, “Hey, how is red going to respond? What are their tactics? What’s their strategy? What are their capabilities?” We have to understand that, embed it in and then we let our guardians figure out how to defeat it. That’s the first step.

To get there, so we’ve talked to OTTI, I think it’s come up in every response. I’m going to spend two minutes just giving my pitch on OTTI. The I is not monolithic. It is a framework. It is not one infrastructure, but it is a bunch of different complexes that build upon each other. Some of them are training-focused. Some of them are test-focused. Sometimes a test-focused complex can provide you with valuable training capability in a residual fashion. It might not be necessarily the case on a training infrastructure. It just might not have the fidelity, but maybe it does. But you’ve got all of this together in one framework. And so our OTTI, PEO, PAE sitting over there, has a huge job on their shoulders in order to bring this into reality. It is threat-informed. It is largely virtual. If I’m going to have that control room where I can flip a switch and the guardians are now engaging with a virtual adversary, it’s got to be digitally-based.

But those digital models have to be based in reality. So I have to do tests. Some of that test is on the ground because I need to do it in a way that I can get that sensitive data and not reveal exactly what I want to do. Some of that has to happen on orbit so we understand how things really respond in their environment. And all of this has to fit together in a coherent strategy. And so getting to the question of where do I think we’re at? We’ve got a long way to go and we’re continuing to add mission capability to that. So our job is never going to be done. So the idea of treating OTTI like a weapon system, it is an enabling force. We need it, but it’s not, I deliver and I’m done. It is going to evolve through the life of the service.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Excellent point, sir. Yeah. We cannot look at the infrastructure as there’s an objective that we hit and it’s delivered and now we just go. It is a continuously evolving enterprise that needs to respond to the threat. And there was an interesting comment there about the threat’s role in that. And so I’ll maybe push this over to Rico and talk about maybe the flexibility you have that when we want to train like we fight, figure out how we fight, we learn new things about the threat. How does that become a responsibility then, particularly on the aggressor side?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

Yeah. So a few points I want to make sure I continue the discussion that General Hague was leading us on. That infrastructure also includes guardians and airmen and civilians and contractors. So it’s not just the kit, it’s not just the facilities, it’s not just the stuff. It’s also the knowledge, the depth and expertise that our intel professionals have, et cetera, et cetera. So that’s also part of the infrastructure. And that’s, again, as I said earlier, we’re investing in our people because that’s key to our success.

I think on the concept of train like you fight and whether or not it’s realistic and where we are, General Whiting spoke recently about maneuver warfare and positioning the force to gain and maintain an advantage so that you can prevail in conflict. So I would posit that we are in the middle of war. We are in the middle of conflict. It’s just operations other than war. We have not engaged in full-on conflict in the domain, but we’re certainly sparring with each other in the domain. And we’ve seen that, also have seen those effects, whether it’s Midnight Hammer or the other operations that have been missioned over the last several days. So I think that’s one, again, back to our people, that’s one of the ways we make this fight realistic is that you’re going to spar with a simulated threat that is intel-informed, that an aggressor, whether it’s orbital warfare, electromagnetic warfare, or cyber, has the experience and expertise working with our intel professionals to present the most realistic threat environment for those guardians and other war fighters.

And then the other way we make this also very realistic and that we drive and that’s unique to our mission is the exposure to the rest of the force, which our guardians don’t necessarily have day-to-day, but we’re going to fight as a joint force. We better know how to integrate with the Air Force. We better know how to integrate with the Army. And we for sure need to be able to integrate with the coalition forces and other mission partners as well.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Good. Go ahead, sir.

Maj. Gen. James E. Smith:

Puma, if I could pull the thread on these last two comments just to amplify the vision. If I’m an airman and I’m pilot, I’m going to go participate in a joint mission, I’m probably going to go to the virtual warfare center and I’m going to sit down in a virtual cockpit and it’s going to be linked to other virtual cockpits and I’m going to fly the scenario multiple times. And those virtual cockpits can tie into my joint brothers and sisters doing their parts of their mission and we can jointly in a virtual environment rehearse our scenario. That’s the vision where we have to get to, the tying both the joint as well as the flipping the switch part that General Hague talked about. And as I’m sitting there as a guardian operator, yes, I should know it’s a simulator, but it should look exactly the same as what I’m doing day-to-day.

So that’s where we’re trying to get to. I agree with Colonel Print that if you look back three years ago, we’ve made tremendous progress and that’s in large part thanks to SSC and the work that System Delta 81 is doing, but we also have a lot of distance to go. I look forward to the support from all of you that have ideas that can help us get there. Thanks.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Unfortunately, we’re kind of running short on time. We’re going to go into the lightning round here for closing remarks. So we got 2.5 minutes, maybe about 30 seconds each. So no pressure, Oiler, you’re first.

Lt. Col. Josh Print:

Well, thanks again for the honor to be on the panel. I’m a plagiarist by nature. I watched a documentary over the weekend. I’ll give credit to HBO in this documentary. I won’t tell you what it’s for, but it’s just a message that resonated with me that I want to pass on to all the guardians in the room as it kind of relates to this panel. Train alongside those who know you best, learn from those who you trust most, respect the wisdom of those who’ve come before you and embrace the promise of those just on their way. Slowly but firmly sharpen your focus for the brutal task that lies ahead, train and prepare for war.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Awesome. Rico?

Col. Agustin Carrero:

So as Teddy Roosevelt is credited as stating, “The credit belongs to the men in the arena.” Delta 11 operates, maintains and sustains the state-of-the-art infrastructure to prepare guardians to prevail in conflict. We need guardians, airmen, all war fighters to come to the arena to spar with our aggressors, to sharpen your skills, raise your hand, volunteer for those opportunities to participate in exercises, to do other test activities and other events that allow us to demonstrate our combat proficiency, but more importantly, to forge that combat credibility that we need in order to win. Thanks.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

You have got me all pumped up. Thank you. General Hague?

Brig. Gen. Nick Hague:

Thanks again for the opportunity to be part of this panel. I think we started talking about LOE1 and making sure that we feel the combat credible force. Readiness, and we’ve talked a lot about institutional approaches to that. Readiness is an individual responsibility as well. And so I charge every guardian in the room to make sure that you’re ready for the fight. You may not deploy in place. You may not deploy in place. You may get called for a deployment. You need to be ready. So take care of all those things that you need to do. And that’s being sharp at work, but it’s also the things at home that make sure that when you’re called upon, you can give 100% and put your focus to it and you’ll be at your best. So take care of yourselves as well.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Sir, I’ll give you 30 seconds here.

Maj. Gen. James E. Smith:

Yeah. I’ll just say, hey, if the Space Force is the invisible frontline, supporting the joint force, realistic training and readiness is the invisible foundation to that invisible frontline, and we have to all get after that together. So thank you.

Col. Kyle Pumroy, USSF (Ret.):

Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, we’re out of time today, but let’s please, once again, thank our panelists for taking time to speak with us today.