ΣΧΟΛΙΟ ΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΙΟΥ : Διαβάζω....για Διαστημικό Σώμα (Space Corps) για δημιουργία Γαλαξιακού Στόλου Μάχης (Galactic Battle Fleet )....και όλα αυτά χωρίς να μας λένε τον λόγο δημιουργίας όλων αυτών.!! Τι υπάρχει εκεί έξω, που τους έχει τρομάξει τόσο πολύ και ετοιμάζονται για ΔΙΑΣΤΗΜΙΚΟ ΠΟΛΕΜΟ;;; Έχουν φτιάξει και το σήμα τους.
WASHINGTON: Congress and the Pentagon need to answer this question: what problem is the Space Force trying to solve?
While it might seem a straightforward question, it isn’t. Not only are there direct questions about how does an independent service for space resolve problems directly challenging US national security space operations and management, experts say. There is an elemental debate inside the military, the Intelligence Community and Congress about the future of warfare and space power’s role in it.
Unfortunately, the current discussion about the Space Force tend to be more narrowly defined.
“When people talk about the current debate they tend to think
about this in terms of who’s in charge, who’s in control — the classic
rice bowl debate,” says Jamie Morin, vice president of Defense Systems
Operations at the Aerospace Corporation. “The focus has been on the
‘who’s in charge question’ and how the different (congressional)
committees have different perspectives on that, and the department’s
proposal’s in a different place. But the broader question is still what
problem are we solving? And some of the differences in perspective are
because different people have different ideas about the problems that
we’re solving.”
The House and Senate, in their competing versions of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), have taken differing approaches to separate the Air Force’s space activities into a Marine Corps-like structure
— which the House calls a Space Corps and the Senate calls a Space
Force. Both bills differ (more or less dramatically) with the Space
Force proposal put forward by the Pentagon. And none of these takes on what a Space Force should look like go all the way to establishing a new Department of Space, as originally advocated by President Donald Trump.
Sadly, the problems that plague national security space are
myriad, making the challenge of figuring out what to address — much less
how to do so — extremely difficult.
“It’s not an easy issue: it’s not one where the Senate says $10 and
the House says $5 and we compromise at $7.50. That’s not we’re dealing
with here,” Morin says.
Speaking to me after today’s seminar, “Changing Spaces and
Places: National Security Space in a Time of Transition,” cosponsored by
the Aerospace Corporation and George Washington University, Morin
articulated a laundry list of issues:
“Is it an acquisition problem, in that we’re too slow? is it a ‘what we try to buy problem’ in that our architectures aren’t designed right? Is it a human capital problem, in that we’re not recruiting and training and retaining the people we need and promoting the right people? Is it a resource advocacy problem, in that you don’t have powerful enough people pounding the table and and making the case for appropriate investments in space capability? Is a lack of operational concepts? Is it an inability to adapt doctrine and thinking to an emerging contested domain?”
This has led to a situation where “different advocates for change will point to different parts of that problem, and while many of them people have views in common, when you get to the bottom of this there’s still significant differences — at the very least in terms of which of these is most important,” he said.
But the lack of cohesion about national security space goes even deeper, says Russ Rumbaugh, systems director for the Aerospace Corp’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy.
“There are a bunch of people who care very deeply about national
security who are making decisions now, and they don’t quite understand
why they are making them. That’s because the people who are advising
them are’t quite saying what they what to say,” he says.
For example, he explains, some Space Force advocates who are focused primarily on the need for establishing ‘space control’ talk about ‘deterrence by denial’ — that is, taking actions to decrease or eliminate the value to an adversary of an attack on US space systems. But what they are really trying to do, he says, is to obfuscate the fact they really want to attack the other side’s capabilities.
“That’s why,” he says, “you continue to have this disconnect between the space policy conversation and the broader defense policy conversation — because the broad policy conversation… is about how do you deter the bad guy” rather than about the goal of space operations themselves.
This tendency to speak in code about what kind of space operations are required in the future — and the fact that military space operators can’t agree about what’s needed — has directly led to what Rumbaugh calls a “muddled” conversation now underway about the Space Force, as well as about the overarching organizational structure of national security space.
Rumbaugh has developed a kind of taxonomy on space operations. He says he hopes it will help break the space geek code so that “people who are making decisions right now can better understand what they are doing.”
These schools of thought range from those who want to “Keep the Plumbing Running” by continuing to focus space activities on supporting traditional military operations to those championing a far reaching “Galactic Battle Fleet” where space power is supreme — a school that champions not only space-based weapons but includes concepts like a Coast Guard in space.
In between these extremes is the currently dominant school of thought within the Air Force, which is “Space Control First.” This assumes space control and warfighting in space must happen first to protect the ability of space assets to fulfill their various missions. “It’s air superiority in space,” Rumbaugh said. Air Force space leaders are most concerned with “winning” the war when it happens, and that implies championing a need for new offensive weapons.
Missing in the national security space conversation, he adds, is how space operations can and should also fit with diplomacy and foreign policy. Instead, he said, the debate is solely about “how do I win the war I see.”
Rumbaugh’s study, “What Place for Space: Competing Schools of Operational Thought in Space,” is due to be released in the next few weeks.
πηγή
Some
Space Force advocates see a future where space power is the central
means of enforcing peace on the planet and within the galaxy.
While it might seem a straightforward question, it isn’t. Not only are there direct questions about how does an independent service for space resolve problems directly challenging US national security space operations and management, experts say. There is an elemental debate inside the military, the Intelligence Community and Congress about the future of warfare and space power’s role in it.
Unfortunately, the current discussion about the Space Force tend to be more narrowly defined.
Jamie Morin, The Aerospace Corporation
Sponsored
Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, Congress, Data And The Tech
Join Breaking Defense in this fascinating video webcast as we explore
the fundamental issues in the emerging age of artificial intelligence
and what that means for national security.
Pre
sented by Technical Partner
sented by Technical Partner“Is it an acquisition problem, in that we’re too slow? is it a ‘what we try to buy problem’ in that our architectures aren’t designed right? Is it a human capital problem, in that we’re not recruiting and training and retaining the people we need and promoting the right people? Is it a resource advocacy problem, in that you don’t have powerful enough people pounding the table and and making the case for appropriate investments in space capability? Is a lack of operational concepts? Is it an inability to adapt doctrine and thinking to an emerging contested domain?”
This has led to a situation where “different advocates for change will point to different parts of that problem, and while many of them people have views in common, when you get to the bottom of this there’s still significant differences — at the very least in terms of which of these is most important,” he said.
But the lack of cohesion about national security space goes even deeper, says Russ Rumbaugh, systems director for the Aerospace Corp’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy.
Recommended
MG Crider To Roll Out New AFSPC Data Strategy
‘Enterprise Data Strategies’ — that mimic a company’s technology
roadmap and business strategy and treat data as a separate entity of
operations in its own right — are all the rage in the corporate sector.
For example, he explains, some Space Force advocates who are focused primarily on the need for establishing ‘space control’ talk about ‘deterrence by denial’ — that is, taking actions to decrease or eliminate the value to an adversary of an attack on US space systems. But what they are really trying to do, he says, is to obfuscate the fact they really want to attack the other side’s capabilities.
“That’s why,” he says, “you continue to have this disconnect between the space policy conversation and the broader defense policy conversation — because the broad policy conversation… is about how do you deter the bad guy” rather than about the goal of space operations themselves.
This tendency to speak in code about what kind of space operations are required in the future — and the fact that military space operators can’t agree about what’s needed — has directly led to what Rumbaugh calls a “muddled” conversation now underway about the Space Force, as well as about the overarching organizational structure of national security space.
Rumbaugh has developed a kind of taxonomy on space operations. He says he hopes it will help break the space geek code so that “people who are making decisions right now can better understand what they are doing.”
These schools of thought range from those who want to “Keep the Plumbing Running” by continuing to focus space activities on supporting traditional military operations to those championing a far reaching “Galactic Battle Fleet” where space power is supreme — a school that champions not only space-based weapons but includes concepts like a Coast Guard in space.
In between these extremes is the currently dominant school of thought within the Air Force, which is “Space Control First.” This assumes space control and warfighting in space must happen first to protect the ability of space assets to fulfill their various missions. “It’s air superiority in space,” Rumbaugh said. Air Force space leaders are most concerned with “winning” the war when it happens, and that implies championing a need for new offensive weapons.
Missing in the national security space conversation, he adds, is how space operations can and should also fit with diplomacy and foreign policy. Instead, he said, the debate is solely about “how do I win the war I see.”
Rumbaugh’s study, “What Place for Space: Competing Schools of Operational Thought in Space,” is due to be released in the next few weeks.
πηγή
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου