Here Comes The Space Force (Update: Its called "Space Command")
Trump to launch Space Command this week as Pence promotes space efforts, CNN
“President Donald Trump will order in the coming days the establishment of a new military space command, a move that comes as Vice President Mike Pence plans two high-profile visits related to the US space program, three US officials tell CNN. Pence will visit Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral on Tuesday, and is expected to visit the Pentagon this week, in part to discuss Trump’s sought-after Space Force. The new Space Command will be only the 11th combined combatant command, joining the ranks of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, and Special Operations Command, which oversees elite troops known as Special Operations Forces. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.”
Text of a Memorandum from the President to the Secretary of Defense Regarding the Establishment of the United States Space Command, White House
“Pursuant to my authority as the Commander in Chief and under section 161 of title 10, United States Code, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I direct the establishment, consistent with United States law, of United States Space Command as a functional Unified Combatant Command. I also direct the Secretary of Defense to recommend officers for my nomination and Senate confirmation as Commander and Deputy Commander of the new United States Space Command. I assign to United States Space Command: (1) all the general responsibilities of a Unified Combatant Command; (2) the space?related responsibilities previously assigned to the Commander, United States Strategic Command; and (3) the responsibilities of Joint Force Provider and Joint Force Trainer for Space Operations Forces. The comprehensive list of authorities and responsibilities for United States Space Command will be included in the next update to the Unified Command Plan”
Now is the time for somebody to start making a tally of how much is spent on this new department and what products and goals are achieved, and what duplication of efforts is in work >>> Waste vs Productivity.
and then compare it to the potential costs to the nation from likely collapse of the nation’s mobile phone network, Internet and ATMs that would occur if America’s enemies were to destroy the space systems they will be responsible for protecting.
Funny how folks always complain about the cost of America’s military, until they need them to save them…
Of course your presumption is that the military can’t take on the defense and support of the resources in question. That’s a presumption that has yet to be proven true.
Note that needing a military is not justification for unrestrained spending. It’s funny how hawks don’t get that.
I’m not sure. In American naval history, the war hawks have generally been proven right. That goes from the opposition to building the first six US frigates (opposed by doves, on the grounds that coastal forts would be cheaper and more dependent on the civil government) to the idea that the Navy would not need a big fleet after the cold war ended. The need for ships in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea cast serious doubts on that idea.
But I’m not convinced about the needs for this new Space Command. Dr. Matula correctly notes our dependence on space assets. But most of those assets are used by multiple nations. Even GPS, a U.S. military constellation, is widely used by people in a large number of nations. Any nation attacking that constellation, or similar other ones, would be declaring war on all those nations. I just don’t see that as politically viable.
Perhaps, but nations run by dictators tend to do things that many would view as stupid politically. Both the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and Argentina come to mind. And a nation could do a lot of havoc in space with just a few IRBMs that have nuclear warheads, especially if it’s economy is far less dependent on satellite tech than Western economies are.
The Air Force already does this. It’s called the US Space Command. Over 30K people.
https://www.afspc.af.mil/Ab…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the army, navy and NRO also have their own, non-unified space assets?
Yes. They will all contribute to the US Space Command in the form of service component commands. If a Space Force is established, the bulk of space assets will be moved there, though it have been stated that service-dedicated space resources will remain within each service.
Yes, and their relationship to the proposed Space Force is one of variables in its formation. Remember President Trump merely stated his support for it, the details will be worked out by those with the security clearances and specialize knowledge to answer the questions raised here. Hopefully they will be applying the results of the space “war games” conducted on a regular basis to the decisions made unlike the defenders of Pearl Harbor who seemed to ignore the results of the war games before WWII that illustrated how easy it was to attack it by carrier aircraft.
Which has the same relationship to the U.S.A.F. that the Air Force had to the U.S. Army before the creation of the Army Air Corps resulted in command being taken away from infrantry generals and given to aviators.
This has been debated over and over again here. Please read the previous threads. The problem is that the Air Force is run by pilots, who have no innate knowledge of space operations, do not care all that much about space operations, have little interest in funding space operations, and when given a choice between an F-22 and a space asset, will always choose the F-22. It’s a poor steward of these resources, and space deserves a dedicated force manager, so that operational and acquisitions aspects can be adequately developed and supported.
Yes, but… That line of reasoning makes the greatest threat a small country, with space launch capabilities, perhaps simply suborbital, possibly atomic weapons, limited dependence on space assets and leadership which either doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks or are borderline psychotic. There are a few countries which fit that bill.
But what could the Space Force do about that sort of threat? The only effective approach I can think of would be a preemptive, counterforce strike on enemy launch facilities. And no one is talking about giving the Space Force that sort of authority.
The will be one of the challenges they will need to address, just as the Army Air Corp had to make the transition from ground support to strategic bombing. Harden satellites, rapid replacement, etc., are some thoughts that come to mind. But what ever strategy they develop, they have a better chance of doing it with a command structure that sees space as job one and doesn’t have to compete with funding for air assets to get what it needs.
You do know that the Space Force is a part of the military…
And in terms of spending, nothing is so expensive as a second class military. The U.S. learned that lesson at the start of WWI and WW II.
Who says our military is second class? That the “Space Force” would be part of the military is obvious. That we need another branch of the military is not a given.
No, the United States leaders controlled a second rate military during the poorly-named War of 1812. That was, by the way, that one of the United States (as opposed to a territory) was invaded by a foreign nation. We just keep changing our minds and deciding in post-war years that military funding isn’t a big deal and that we shouldn’t let the military control our nation. (For what it’s worth, I think the former is a mistake while the later is a necessity which unfortunately puts us at a disadvantage at the start of major wars.)
In WWI we had to look to the British and French not just for planes, but for tanks, machine guns and anti-submarine warfare systems.
In WWII our tanks and small infrantry weapons were behind at the start, as were our fighter aircraft. We never did match the Germans in tank technology or submarines technology nor the Japanese in torpedoes and submarines, but we won by simply out producing them. Tiger tanks were great, but Germany only had 1,500 compared to over 40,000 Sherman tanks.
But the commanders who had to go to war in WW II with inadequate weapons made a vow, never again.
Hopefully their upcoming $733+ billion will satisfy their desire to control the entire planet. Oh wait, now they want space too, so budget “to infinity and beyond”. Good thing our military can’t be used domestically, much of the marching ground forces would vanish into potholes or tumble into rivers as bridges collapse.
In a sense, though, the military IS used internally, at least to the extent that the cost denies us the ability to buy other nice things: health care, education, roads, etc.
Yes, I know, it’s a much more complex argument than that. From time to time though military spending pisses me off.
The money doesn’t bother me too much. As a nation, we spend similar amounts on I think are pretty pointless and nowhere as useful as education or roads. Unfortunately, the military approach also created a whole attitude towards spending which has (in my opinion) really hurt progress in space.
The US military learned, the hard way, that things need to work. If a soldier’s life depends on it, a rifle prone to jamming is not acceptable. Torpedoes really ought to detonate after a submarine’s crew has taken great risks to get into position and launch one. Ballistic missiles which fail to fly halfway around the world are not a credible deterrent. That’s led to a philosophy of placing performance and capability on a pedestal and _not_ sacrificing them to reduce costs. I’m not sure if that’s the right choice for the military (I don’t care how great a plane the F-22 is, since it costs so much we could only afford 187 of them.) But the same philosophy, thanks to the common use of rockets, also became entrenched within NASA and the aerospace industry. And reliable, high performance regardless of cost is _not_ the right approach for space exploration.
I think that would be quite difficult. You would have to figure out how to separate out the savings as well as the costs. The main costs would be from setting up a new administration and whatever new facilities would be needed and the paperwork involved in transferring the personnel from existing services into the new service.
Since a lot of the work and the personnel and their associated costs exist already across the existing services, and we are actually consolidating them into one organization, we are more likely reducing costs and eliminating duplication of effort in those areas.
As far as waste vs productivity, how do you even measure that in an objective fashion?
That is just from the top of my head, as there are probably a lot of other things that would add as well subtract from the true costs and savings.
There is no new department (yet). The new unified command on the other hand,, is being paid for by existing reprogrammed funds already allocated to the DOD.
What a waste of time and resources. The Air Force already does this and does a darn good job of it.
No, it does not, and that is the entire point.
It looks like that this does not actually create the Space Force, a separate military branch. This creates a new Unified Combatant Command, at same level as the current geographic and functional UCC’s, such as US Strategic Command and US Southern Command.
The difference is that the President can create these UCC’s without congressional approval. Such approval is required for the creation of a new military branch. So while this does not actually create the Space Force, it is a step forward toward that goal.
It looks like (wikipedia) the Air Force Space Command is a component of the US Strategic Command, as is the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. So would these be moved out of the US Strategic Command? Also I see there is a Joint Force Space Component commander (https://www.af.mil/News/Art… within US Strategic Command… so it seems like there already is a structure in place to coordinate space activities of the various branches. It seems premature if not odd to elevate this to the same level as US Strategic Command.
Partially, yes. ARSTRAT would probably be a split force provider for both STRATCOM and SPACECOM, while AFSTRAT (8th/20th Air Forces) would become the sole force provider for STRATCOM. Also, read some history. USSPACECOM previously existed from 1985 to 2002, but was cannibalized after 9/11 to form USNORTHCOM. So, nothing at all premature about it.
Well, I probably would have gotten there eventually (finding info on USSPACECOM), but thanks for the pointer. This is outside of my field obviously, but according to wikipedia USSPACECOM was deactivated to bring the total number of UCCs down to 10. So it would seem that someone thought it wasn’t really needed at the level of a UCC at the time.
However we aren’t creating a “new” Space Force. We are simply going back to the same organizational structure we had before it was changed because we didn’t remember why it was created.
Not aware of the designation “ARSTRAT”. 8th & 29th AF comprise AFGSC (Air Force Global Strike Command). Eighth is bombers, 20th is Minuteman III ICBM’s.
The land-based missiles were brought in under Space Command (rockets fly through space…right?) when Cold War 1.0 was thought to be over…(missileers and dogs keep off the grass), and the neglect of that portion of the Triad brought on problems with morale and quality. Missiles and bombers were then brought in under AFGSC, supposedly improving things, although a former missileer I talked with recently said Minuteman got better treatment under Space Command. It is probably going to take a while for all this to shake out.
Not quite all, as the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command is not under USSTRATCOM. There may be a few others as well, but I don’t know. Aside from the consolidation question though, is the issue of whether space related activities and resources are given their proper due by the upper echelons in the services, most notably the Air Force. There has been criticism that the generals in the AF care more about the latest fighter than they do space resources. Certainly understandable to an extent, but it does raise the question if a separate force is needed to properly give space activities their due.
I am not an insider, so I am not going to debate that question, but I can relate a personal anecdote from back when I was a contractor.
I used to work with one of AF’s Space Operations Squadrons (SOPS). The SOPS are responsible for flying the AF’s satellite fleet. The SOPS are filled with young lieutenants and captains who are there because they want space careers.
A shout out to all the SOPS out there, it was a pleasure and honor working with y’all. Certainly among the best and brightest young men and women in the AF.
Anyway, when I worked with them I got an earful about the fact that many of them were being forced to do tours in the nuke silos. This was the idea of some general high up in the chain. His reasoning was that since space involved rockets and nuke missiles involved rockets, then the two could be lumped together, and so all those space personnel were ripe for the picking to work his nukes. As you might imagine, all those young officers I worked with, who were making a living flying spacecraft, were not amused.
Granted, this is a single data point, but it does make me more willing to believe that there is a need for “space cognizant” people in the military who really understand the need for space systems, and that maybe it’s better for them to have their own organization rather than be under other, more traditionally based, organizations.
What was your first hint?
“What was your first hint?”
About what?
Well there already is a space command in the air force:
https://www.afspc.af.mil
Is the proposal to move the space command out of the air force, or create a second space command?
The AF Space Command currently is a component of US Strategic Command, one of the current United Combatant Commands. I believe the proposal is to take AF Space Command and the space components of the Army and Navy and combine them into the new US Space Command, a new UCC. This means the USSC would then be at same level of US Strategic Command, which currently runs most of the current military space activities.
This would likely mean the end of the “AF” Space Command as all their operations would now fall under the purview of the “US” Space Command.
Wrong. Air Force Space Command becomes the Air Force service component command for USSPACECOM. US Army Space and Missile Defense Command becomes the Army service component command, and the Navy and Marine Corps will form similar elements.
What part of my post is “wrong” other than possibly terminology?
Please read the previous threads before posting the exact same thing that someone else did.
I did… I posted before the other post showed up. Posts do not always show up immediately due to moderation.