July 10, 2018—Make Trump’s Space Force All It Should Be!

“Through my entire career I have watched the space enterprise struggle with integration in the [space] multidomain. You watch the chief of staff and many of the generals try to figure out how to seamlessly stitch the space community into a networked architecture. In my opinion, that will [be] harder at first to figure out. What does a ‘Space Force’ look like? What are the primary missions?” Col. Russell Teehan, Director of the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate and Commander of Phillips Research Site, Kirtland AFB, NM at the NewSpace conference, Seattle, June 26, 2018

Click here for Irene Klotz’s July 4, 2018 informative Aviation Week article, “Space Force: A Cautionary Tale and an Opportunity,” that suggests we now need to benefit from lessons learned when the Army Air Corps split in 1947 from the U.S. Army to form the U.S. Air Force. Among other things she also notes that Col. Teehan (above) claimed that it took until the 1991 Gulf War, Desert Storm, for the Air Force to again emphasize a close air support mission. (This transition produced greater fighter pilot influence in the Air Force, including within its strategic mission.)

Ms. Llotz also notes that, unsurprisingly, current Air Force leaders (including the Secretary and Chief of Staff) have resisted congressional interest for considering the formation of a “Space Corps” within the Air Force ranks — claiming instead that the Air Force has everthing under control, thank you. We’ve seen this act before … several times.

Click here for my June 26, 2018 review of some of those times during a pertinent period extending to the present day from the 1943 vision of General “Hap” Arnold, Commander of the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and the first Commander of the brand new U.S. Air Force in 1947.

All current biases have long been fully evident to any who wished to examine the facts, certainly by the end of the 1990s — since the Clinton administration gutted the most important programs of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which were left behind on January 20, 1993. The most important of those programs supported Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptors, the first SDI effort to be approved, in 1990 by the Pentagon’s Acquisition Executive to enter a formal Demonstration-Validation (DemVal) phase.

As noted by the first four directors of what is now called the Missile Defense Agency, Brilliant Pebbles was the most cost-effective ballistic missile defense (BMD) concept produced by the SDI era—1983-93. The Pentagon’s independently approved cost estimates for developing, testing, deploying and operating a constellation of 1000 Brilliant Pebbles for 20 years was $10-billion in 1988 dollars, or $20-billion in current dollars.

Since then, we have spent several times that much for much less effective BMD systems that can protect only a much smaller area from a much smaller attack. See the chart below for an illustration of the intercept opportunities that a Brilliant Pebbles constellation would provide — from our SDI 1992 report to congress.

In the late 1990s, then Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) gained sufficient political support to get appointed the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, known as the Rumsfeld Commission after its Chairman and subsequently Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Sen. Smith, who had been a strong SDI supporter, hoped this commission would set an agenda for what he hoped would be the next, George W. Bush, administration. Click here for the Federation of American Scientists webpage on the Commission’s 2001 report and here for its Executive Summary.

While there were a number of useful recommendations, some of which were realized, the pathway to forming a “Space Corps” within the Air Force was not realized in the subsequent era — most disappointingly — especially during the George W. Bush’s administration and the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Today’s Air Force leaders may hope to repeat another diversionary strategy to undermine President Trump’s Space Force directive.

In 2002, President Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty which had blocked development and deployment of the most cost-effective space-based BMD systems conceived during the SDI era, but his administration did not even revive the key technology programs; let alone institute a program to actually build such a cost effective system. Of course, the Obama administration did nothing to revive this technology either.

It will be interesting to see if the Trump administration will actually “Go back to the Future” to exploit the concepts pioneered during the SDI era, now with today’s much more advanced technology — and hopefully under the wings of a new Space Force. But “hope is not a strategy.”

Click here for a timely Defense News article on “Launching the Sixth Branch of the US Armed Services” by former Representative Mike Rogers (R-Mich), now in the David Abshire chair at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress. As the 2011-2015 Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he well understands that conflict in space is already occurring, despite some chanting “Star Wars” and other “science fiction” as did those who ridiculed Ronald Reagan’s SDI.

Satellites and their ground systems are jammed, dazzled and subject to cyber attacks, but without a lot of coverage. Our space systems are vulnerable to these threats, and we’re not in a strong position to deter, respond or ameliorate the effects. We are not resilient, and our adversaries know it. China and Russia have accelerated their efforts to the point that many senior officials believe the U.S. has lost or is close to losing our strategic advantages in space.

Rogers argues that “If we want to build a truly resilient architecture, we need to seize upon the innovation that is occurring today and develop a portfolio of options to meet the challenges in space. It’s a fairly simple equation — innovation plus options equals resiliency.”

He notes that many have paid lip service to this reality and reported on research and statements about the need to increase our space systems’ resiliency. But the Air Force hasn’t (until recently) done much, if anything, to address the emerging reality. Key leaders within the Air Force rightly have declared that “space is a war-fighting domain,” but most in the acquisition and planning offices haven’t seemed to get the memo.

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which designs, builds and operates classified reconnaissance satellites, for its part has been verbally emphasizing resiliency for several years — as far as it goes. But Rogers pertinently reported that, the Air Force and the NRO continue largely to buy the same systems based on the same requirements, launched on largely the same platforms to do the same missions.

At the same time, commercial technology continues to evolve and challengers have entered the space arena with this new technology and renewed vigor, as illustrated when a savvy SpaceX lawsuit provided a new player for U.S. national security launches. This alternative is challenging the joint Lockheed Martin-Boeing United Launch Alliance (ULA), which reportedly cannot compete in the commercial marketplace — but for more than a decade was the single industry source for launching all Air Force and NRO satellites. Blue Origin also plans to field a commercially competitive heavy-lift rocket that could meet the Air Force’s and NRO’s needs. Such competition is reducing costs as we seek to restore the U.S. edge in cutting-edge technology.

Rogers emphasized the uncomfortable truth that ULA’s Atlas rockets rely on Russian RD-180 engines to power them to orbit. So, Russian rocket engines, manufactured by a key ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, power many of our national security payloads. Hmmmm ….

Thankfully, Congress weighed in and mandated that this dependency needs to stop by 2022. With multiple domestic launch alternatives, there is no excuse to place our national security in the hands of an adversary. Perhaps this subject may come up in next week’s Helsinki summit between Presidents Trump and Putin?

No doubt, Putin does not like President Trump’s Space Force order, and the conversations might become a bit testy, like the Soviet’s proposals to “ban space-strike arms” (copied and expanded by others) that we weathered during my time in Geneva as President Reagan’s Chief Defense and Space Negotiator.

To quote Yogi Berra, “Déjà vu all over again?”

Rogers endorsed the Defense Department’s use of “reusable launch systems,” another concept pioneered by SDI engineers and contractors — and first demonstrated in the 1990s. SpaceX has been launching previously flown Falcon 9 boosters since 2017, while Blue Origin is designing its New Glenn booster to be re-flown multiple times.

And Rogers acknowledged the importance of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency efforts to explore the capabilities of large constellations of small satellites in low-Earth orbit. SpaceX, OneWeb and others are also working on large constellations that could offer global broadband and enhanced communications capabilities — a potential game-changer for military connectivity and an increase in resiliency.

I would add — and urge, “Don’t forget Brilliant Pebbles as these matters are considered.” Just as we learned during the SDI era (1983-93), the key to keeping costs down is to exploit commercial sector technologies that for years have been outpacing those of the government. We should fully leverage the work of the commercial space sector. Failing to do so will leave us vulnerable.

Click here for David Ignatius’ June 26 Washington Post article “Now is the Time for the Space Force. Trump just Needs to Get it Right.” He correctly noted Pentagon fears that launching a separate space contingent would set off one of the epic turf wars that have been a regular feature of U.S. military history. These rivalries often follow the advent of new technologies. And I would add, must be resisted.

He observed that the Air Force emerged “from the cocoon of a jealous Army only after World War II,” and that as ballistic missile technology advanced in the 1950s, the Army argued that it was a form of artillery that should be controlled by its ballistic specialists. But the Air Force successfully insisted it was part of the aeronautical domain with the result that the Air Force developed and operates our intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Less well known is that USAF General Sam Phillips (protégé of USAF Bennie Schriever — the father of Air Force Space) after whom Phillips Laboratory is named — led NASA’s Apollo program that took men to the Moon in record time.

The Air Force was once justified in assuming “Space” was its responsibility, but it failed to lead. President Trump’s initiative is warranted after many USAF failures to lead in executing that presumed responsibility, especially in not seriously advocating a Space Corps and indeed failing even to exploit technology being developed by the private sector.

Moreover, Ignatius notes that top Pentagon leadership helped to shoot down the “space corps” idea last October, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote congressional leaders: “I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”

The Air Force leadership had been hoping this space force/corps proposal would go away, and dismissed any suggestion that their service’s control of space defense might be challenged. After so many months/years in denial, the Air Force may now be “justifiably out-of-the-loop” for leading the response to President Trump’s order, explicitly to the Joint Chiefs Chairman.

Ignatius also notes that, meanwhile, a space revolution is underway, quite apart from Trump’s edicts. Private companies are pioneering new launch technologies that are driving down costs; and Russia and China are developing exotic space weapons that could cripple the United States in any future conflict.

It’s long past time to think about reshaping our space defense — creatively and carefully.

Bottom Lines.

Missing so far in the discussion of pertinent history of the innovative lethargy of the military services has been any reference to one of my favorites: U.S. Army General Billy Mitchel, who was court marshaled because of his advocacy for an Army Air Corps following World War I — and his full scale testing that underwrote his explicit, accurate prediction of Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hopefully, it will not take a “Space Pearl Harbor” to wake us up this time, as was warned by the Rumsfeld Space Commission in 2002 along with its ignored recommendation for a USAF Space Corps, 16 years ago.

In any case, Pentagon officials now say they understand that the Commander-in-Chief has spoken, and that they’re now thinking about how best to implement the space force. Two feasibility studies mandated by Congress are due later this year, hopefully to include a thoughtful discussion of costs and benefits — including for space based defenses. And hopefully, the Pentagon “powers that be” recognize that any attempt to slow-roll Trump is ill advised.

Click here for indication that Strategic Subcommittee Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), has discussed with President Trump the changing space threat and the need for a dedicated, organized professional cadre whose sole mission is to protect national security interests in space — and he said the president’s interest in a Space Force clearly is informed by his understanding of the growing threats from Russia and China.

When President Trump formally announced his initiative, he turned to the Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine General Joe Dunford and asked, “Got it?” And the General for all the world to see responded, “We got it!”

We’ll see.

What can you do?

Join us in praying for our nation, and for a rebirth of the freedom sought, achieved and passed to us by those who came before us.

Help us to spread our message to the grass roots and to encourage all “powers that be” to provide for the common defense as they are sworn to do.

Begin by passing this message to your friends and suggest they visit our webpage www.highfrontier.org, for more information. Also, please encourage your sphere of influence to sign up for our weekly e-newsletter.

Encourage them to review our past email messages, posted on www.highfrontier.org, to learn about many details related to the existential manmade and natural EMP threats and how we can protect America against them. I hope you will help us with our urgently needed efforts, which I will be discussing in future messages.

Click here to make a tax deductible gift. If you prefer to mail a check, Please send it High Frontier, 20 F Street 7^th Floor, Washington, DC 20001.

E-Mail Message 180710