Past, Present, Future

Document Sample
Past, Present, Future Powered By Docstoc
					Summer Theme

Past, Present, Future
      Satellites become “high ground
      of Space” over last 30 years

                                                   By Bill Furr

        ver the past three decades, satellite systems have been      The Sixties
        developed into vital combat enablers of the Army’s               In 1961, DoD assigned the mission of manag-
        warfighting capability. Occupying the “high ground           ing and operating U.S. military Space launch vehicles
        of Space,” satellites now provide unprecedented “bat-        and satellites to the Air Force. In the early 1960s, the
        tlespace awareness” that helps reduce the “fog, friction,    Defense Communications Agency was formed and
        and uncertainty of warfare.” Space has, indeed, changed      assumed the role as the developer of communications
        the way military force is applied and created opportuni-     payloads in satellite systems. In 1962, the U.S. Army
        ties to redefine the Army’s role in developing its uses.     Satellite Communications Agency was created with the
            Space capabilities are a cornerstone of the Army’s       responsibility for ground terminal and ground support
        Transformation Force. Critical operations such as com-       development of satellite systems. The Army continues
        munications, imagery, reconnaissance, navigation, and        to perform this mission today, most prominently in
        warning have migrated from a total dependence on ter-        ground mobile force terminals for the Defense Satellite
        restrial systems to an integrated architecture of ground-,   Communications System and military strategic and tacti-
        air-, and Space-based technologies that are systems          cal relay system.
        unencumbered by the terrestrial limitations of topog-
        raphy and distance. To achieve the Objective Force           The Seventies
        requirement for information superiority for advanced             In the early 1970s, national satellite systems were
        full spectrum operations, Space must be seamlessly           providing essential strategic, national-level capabilities.
        integrated into land-force operations. Seamless integra-     At the operational and tactical level, however, users were
        tion is not about improvements to individual platforms,      not receiving products and services from these systems
        weapons, sensors, or decision tools, but about the com-      in a timely manner. In 1973, the Army took the lead in
        plete integration of land- and Space-based capabilities      DoD by establishing the Army Space Program Office
        across the full battlespace. Achieving information supe-     to execute the Army Tactical Exploitation of National
        riority requires the Army to define what it wants from       Capabilities Program (TENCAP), serve as the unique
        Space and position itself to get it.                         technical and fiscal interface with the national program
                                                                     offices, and manage the TENCAP materiel acquisition.
        A Historical Perspective of the Army’s                       The TENCAP program is based on exploiting current
        Role in Space                                                and future tactical potential of national capabilities and
            From a historical perspective, the Army has had an       integrating those capabilities into the tactical decision-
        important role in the development and use of Space           making process as rapidly as possible. This approach
        systems. In the early stages of the U.S. Space program,      was so successful that Congress ordered all services
        the Army was instrumental in the development of rock-        to establish a TENCAP program based on the Army’s
        ets and satellites. The first U.S. satellite was launched    model in 1977.
        into orbit by an Army Redstone rocket. Subsequently,
        presidential decisions in 1958 transferred Army rockets      The Eighties
        and missiles to NASA.                                           In the mid-1980s, the Army continued to solidify
                                                                     and exploit Space within the Army. In 1983, the Army
36   Army Space Journal Summer 2003
 The Theater Missile Warning
 Company fields and sup-
 ports the operation of Joint
 Tactical Ground Stations
 that provide early warning
 of missile launches to our
 deployed forces wherever
 the threat of ballistic missiles
 exists. The JTAGS systems
 provide direct down-linked,
 in-theater, early warning of
 missile launches. The five
 existing JTAGS systems are
 operated by joint Army/Navy
 crews and are a part of the
 U.S. Strategic Command’s
             Event       System
                                           Army’s role in developing Space
                                                   systems critical
                                        Army responsibilities among Department of Defense roles and
                                        missions must include active investment in and development of
                                        Space for Army purposes. As the Army contributes to joint warf-
Space Council was formed and            ighting and maintains dominance in land warfare, it may not be
consisted of designated general         able to depend solely on Space capabilities developed by other
officers who had the responsibil-
ity to coordinate actions, approve      services. Space systems, especially Space force enhancement
proposals and provide guidance          user equipment and terrestrial-based Space control systems, will
on Army involvement in and use
of Space. In 1985, the Army
                                        need to provide capabilities specifically for soldiers to continue
Training and Doctrine Command           land dominance. The Army role in developing Space systems
(TRADOC) established a Space            must be active.
Directorate at the Combined Arms
Combat Developments Activity                                    (1994, 2003):
with the responsibility for the development of con-                · Support to the warfighter.
cepts, doctrine, and operational requirements for Space.           · Contribute to successful execution of Army mis-
The Space Directorate published the initial operational                sions.
concept for Space, “Army Space Operations,” in 1985.               · Contribute to Army modernization objectives.
In August 1986, the Army Space Planning Group,                     · Enhance Army Space expertise.
the Army element assigned to the newly formed U.S.                 · Exploit and use Space capabilities.
Space Command, was redesignated as the Army Space

Agency. The agency was the Army component to the                The Nineties
U.S. Space Command and a field-operating agency of                  In August 1992, the U.S. Army Space Command
Headquarters, Department of the Army. On April 7,               became a major subordinate element of the newly formed
1988, the U.S. Army Space Command was activated                 U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command
and organized to support the field Army. It absorbed            (SSDC). In March 1998, SSDC was redesignated U.S.
the planning and support functions of the Army Space            Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) to
Agency and assumed operational Space missions.                  act as the specified proponent for Space and as the prin-
    In the early to mid-1980s, our national Space poli-         cipal adviser to the Army Staff for all matters pertaining
cies began to reflect a transition from peaceful use of         to the research and development of Space.
Space for science, technology, and commercial activities,
to policies reflecting Space systems as force enablers          2000
critical to national survival. Policies reflecting Space as a      It was the Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict
warfighting medium began to take shape. By dovetailing          that brought Space into the spotlight. Kuwait and
national and DoD Space policies, the Army published             Iraq operations presented a different scenario than the
an Army Space Policy in 1985 that established Space             traditional Cold War European scenario. Our forces
capabilities as a priority for integration into future Army     were faced with limited national infrastructures, great
operational doctrine and warfighter requirements. The           expanses of desert to command and control, and limited
1985 Army Space Policy embodied tenets that were                knowledge of the terrain or obstacles in which the Iraqi
underscored through subsequent Army Space policies                                         (See Army’s Role, page 48)
                                                                Summer 2003        Army Space Journal                        37
Army’s Role ...          from Page 37

forces would deploy. Space systems that         missions from the surface of the Earth.       recommendations satisfied the Secretary
traditionally supported strategic missions      The Air Force functions specifically call     of Defense’s intent to consolidate man-
were realigned to support operational and       for defense of the United States against      agement of Space programs and to gain
tactical level missions. Military satellite     Space attack, Space supremacy and defeat      visibility for programming and budgeting
communications (MILSATCOM) systems              of Space forces. Launch and Space sup-        of Space capabilities. The accepted rec-
were soon overtaxed, requiring reposi-          port for DoD is assigned to the Air Force.    ommendations of the Space Commission
tioning of satellites and reallocation of       These Space control Service responsibili-     are considered to be extremely positive
channels and bandwidth from strategic to        ties originate from the Service roles and     to the organization and management of
tactical use. Imagery, both national and        responsibilities established throughout       Space at this time. There are three recom-
commercial, became critical for the devel-      the development of military Space. The        mendations, however, that could have an
opment of maps, terrain analysis, and           emphasis over the years has changed from      effect on how the Army approaches and
intelligence. Processing facilities often       solely single Service missions to joint       influences Space in the future: (1) The
were halfway around the world — yet our         development and cooperation in Space          designation of the Department of the Air
troops required near-real-time dissemina-       and Space-associated missions.                Force as the Executive Agent for Space
tion. The vast desert expanses with no              The Air Force was assigned responsi-      with planning, programming, and acquisi-
key terrain features presented a problem        bility for development, production, and       tion of Space systems; (2) the establish-
of precise navigation that was solved by        deployment of Space systems for warning       ment of a “virtual” major force program
using the newly orbited global position-        and surveillance, military satellite commu-   for Space to increase the visibility into the
ing system (GPS) constellation and rush-        nications, navigation, and launch vehicles,   resources allocated for Space activities;
ing demonstration small lightweight GPS         including launch and orbital support oper-    and (3) the assignment of the National
receivers into theater. The Iraqi SCUD          ations. As a result of DSCS, the Army         Security Space Architect (NSSA) to the
missile presented a formidable threat not       was assigned responsibility for ground        Under Secretary of the Air Force. The
only to coalition forces but also to Saudi      terminal development and acquisition and      NSSA will report on the consistency of
Arabia and Israel. Detection of missile         payload control. In the TENCAP pro-           the implementation of the defense and
launches was accomplished by altering           gram, each of the Services was responsible    intelligence Space programs with policy,
the strategic missile warning system and        for the development of its own TENCAP         planning guidance, and architectural deci-
emplacing ad hoc warning to theater from        capabilities. The Navy was designated the     sions. Most importantly, from an Army
the continental United States. Clearly,         responsible Service for sea-launch capa-      perspective, the NSSA will assess trades
the need for satellite systems to support       bility and for Service-unique capability      between Space and non-Space solutions
tactical operations surged in importance        that supports its operational needs, such     and integration of Space with land, sea,
during this conflict.                           as ultra high frequency communications.       and air forces. These changes place a
                                                When a Space capability crosses multiser-     great deal of authority and power over the
Service Roles and                               vice requirements, a joint program office     future of Space and the budgetary means
Responsibilities                                is usually established (e.g., NAVSTAR         for the development of future Space with
    Decisions on Space responsibilities         GPS, global broadcast and joint tactical      the Air Force.
forged throughout the last three decades        ground stations) to represent the multiser-       The second major factor is the merger
have charted lanes in the road for the          vice requirements and interests.              of U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM)
Services that still exist today. Each mili-                                                   and       U.S.    Strategic      Command
tary Service has the responsibility to train,   The Changing Road                             (USSTRATCOM) as USSTRATCOM and
equip and provide forces for unique Service         The roles, missions, and relationships    the assignment of new missions in the
Space operations and for joint opera-           for current Space capabilities are firmly     Unified Command Plan (UCP). Since
tions. This recognizes both the unique          and clearly established. There are a num-     Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the impor-
requirements of each Service and the            ber of factors, however, that may influ-      tance of Space to military operations has
joint responsibilities established by Title     ence or change the present missions and       been recognized. Far-sighted leadership
10, United States Code. DoD Directive           relationships.                                at USSPACECOM pushed the envelope
(DODD) 5100.1 further delineates the                First, the Commission to Assess           in highlighting the importance of Space to
responsibility of the military Services to      United States National Security Space         national security and warfighting success.
coordinate the development of doctrine,         Management and Organization presented         USSPACECOM’s showcase planning doc-
procedures, and equipment employed in           a number of recommendations to the            ument, the Long-range Plan, provided a
the conduct of Space operations. Space          Secretary of Defense, many of which           comprehensive Joint plan for Space that
control is included in the intent of this       are in the process of being implemented       integrated Service capabilities and require-
directive. The Army and Navy develop            (amplification of Service functions have      ments through participation and support
and train forces to conduct Space control       been incorporated in DoDD 5100.1). The        of its components. USSPACECOM sup-

 48          Army Space Journal Summer 2003
ported and advocated the roles of        concepts and Joint functional con-         is expected that these roles will con-
the Services in support of Space         cepts. Supporting the concepts will        tinue into the near future; however,
operations through integration of        be integrated architectures that devel-    it is the evolving future of Space
its Joint Space Forces in military       op operational, system and technical       the Army needs to be concerned
operations. USSPACECOM clearly           views for a functional area. Within        about. The designation of the Air
saw the role and contributions each      the JCIDS structure, the focal point       Force as the Executive Agent for
Service provided to Joint Space oper-    for organization, analysis and pri-        Space could allow the Air Force to
ations and accordingly advocated for     oritization of warfighting capabilities    prosecute its role in Space over those
or directly assigned missions. The       is the Functional Capabilities Board       of the other Services. The challenge
success of Army support was evident      (FCB). The FCB is a body that              faced by the Executive Agent for
in Space support teams, missile warn-    would be permanently established           Space will be to balance the strategic,
ing, payload control, and Space-based    by the Joint Requirements Oversight        operational, and tactical needs of all
Blue Force Tracking. Now with            Council. The current concept is for        users and lessen the concern that
the merger of the two commands           FCBs to align to functional areas such     the Air Force will dominate certain
and the revision of the UCP that         as “gathering information, produc-         Space programs to the exclusion of
assigned the new missions of global      ing information, preventing effects,       the other Services. Although the Air
strike and command, control, com-        causing effects, and focused logis-        Force may not intentionally exclude
munications, computers, intelligence,    tics.” We might expect that Space,         the other Services, the cultural differ-
surveillance, and reconnaissance,        as a whole, or subsets of Space (e.g.,     ences between the Air Force Space
along with the original missions of      Space control, MILSATCOM, etc.)            Forces and the ground warfighter may
Space and integrated missile defense,    would be considered in the FCBs, but       make the understanding of warfighter
USSTRATCOM will face a strategic         there would not be a specific FCB for      needs and the priority of those needs
challenge in maintaining the focus       Space. The FCB is responsible for          open to different interpretations. To
and advocacy for the Service roles in    the development and maintenance            overcome the cultural differences,
Space. Faced with an immense port-       of functional concepts and integrat-       the Army needs to work with the Air
folio of missions, USSTRATCOM            ed architectures, and the coordina-        Force in organizations such as NSS
may look to its primary Service com-     tion, integration, and deconfliction       and the Air Force Space Command
ponent command for Space, Air            of DoD component efforts within            to develop their understanding of
Force Space Command, to be the           the functional area. FCB efforts are       the ground warfighter perspective for
voice and advocate for Space and         focused on the development of the          Space support. This will require
Space programs.                          entire range of doctrine, organization,    more active Army solicitation and
    The third factor is the proposed     training, materiel, leadership, person-    participation at all levels of future
change from the Requirements             nel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) solu-        development of Space capabilities
Generation System (RGS) (CJCSI           tions. JCIDS documentation will be         within the Air Force Space structure.
3170.01A) to Joint Capabilities          forwarded to the Joint Requirements            The results of the merger of

Integration and Development System       Oversight Council for decision after       USSPACECOM and USSTRATCOM
(JCIDS) (CJCSI 3170.01C ), which         evaluation and analysis by the FCB         roles     and      missions      under
is in draft. The JCIDS is a new          to ensure concept and architectural        USSTRATCOM should be of some
and different concept that establishes   compliance. The FCB is the clearing-       concern to the Army Space commu-
the structure and defines how new        house for warfighting requirements         nity. The broad roles and missions
capabilities will be developed and       and the proponent of ultimate solu-        now assigned to USSTRATCOM
validated within DoD. The major          tions.                                     lead to the certainty that Space will
difference between the old RGS and                                                  no longer have the pre-eminent hold
JCIDS is that JCIDS is top-down          The Army Path                              it enjoyed under USSPACECOM.
driven based on “national defense           With the acceptance of the Space        As the USSPACECOM Army com-
policy and centered in the common        Commission Report in 2001, the             ponent, Army Space advocated
Joint warfighting construct.” From       ongoing changes to the management          the Army warfighter needs — and
the beginning, future capabilities       and organization of Space including        USSPACECOM listened.               The
will be developed in an integrated       the merger of USSPACECOM and               Army must work closely with the
fashion and will be “born Joint.”        USSTRATCOM, and the pending                USSTRATCOM staff in advocating
Capabilities will be developed to sup-   publication of JCIDS, the centers of       the Army’s role in Space, solidifying
port an overarching Joint concept of     gravity have changed for Space and         Army missions and emphasizing a
operations through Joint operating       the Army must change with them. It         ground warfighter focus. As a uni-

                                                            Summer 2003            Army Space Journal                     49
            The Army has had a prominent historical role in
             the development and use of Space capabilities.
               Many changes to Space organization and
               management have been proposed over the
                 past few years, some of which are now
                          being implemented.

fied command, USSTRATCOM’s cultural           bilities. Current efforts within the Force      we can expect that the reliance on Space
focus is on current capabilities and opera-   Development and Integration Center of           capabilities will significantly rise. As this
tions, leaving future planning for Space to   SMDC to establish a Space Planning              occurs we will see changing emphasis,
other organizations within DoD.               Process to augment and structure the            new operational concepts, and differ-
    The proposed change from the cur-         current Space Integrated Concept Team           ing organizational structures that will be
rent Requirements Generation System           will provide the rigor and analysis nec-        needed to meet the changes of the future.
to the Joint Capabilities Integration and     essary to build the Army concepts and           The Army has not only a vested interest
Development System may be the greatest        architecture across all functional Space        in the future of Space and Space manage-
opportunity for the Army to solidify its      mission areas. Through this effort the          ment, but also a moral obligation to its
future roles and missions in Space. The       Army should be able to present a com-           warfighters to ensure that Space contin-
Army’s transformation development to          prehensive road map for Space, embodied         ues to evolve and meet its operational
the Objective Force should be a leading       in the Army Space Master Plan, that can         needs. To meet this obligation, the Army
precept in the development of the Joint       be used to develop Joint concepts and           must know where it wants to go in Space,
operating concept that describes how the      architectures. The Army’s participation         develop the road ahead, and advocate its
Joint Force commander deploys, employs,       in and support of the FCBs may prove            concepts in every Space forum. This will
and sustains a Joint Force.                   crucial to its future influence over Space.     require “out-of-the-box thinking” on the
    Correspondingly, a Joint functional       Defining needed Army Space capabili-            part of our Space cadre and acceptance
concept should, in part, reflect the objec-   ties in support of the Objective Force          of new ideas and concepts in the vari-
tives of TRADOC Pamphlet 525-60,              and applying them to the FCBs may be            ous elements of our Space community.
Concept for Space Operations in Support       the only way future Army Space capabili-        The most important aspect to success-
of the Objective Force. The issue then        ties will be recognized. This will require      fully meet the challenges of the future
becomes: are the Army concepts, as writ-      that the Army “cadre of Space experts”          is to have a holistic approach to Space
ten now, relevant to the Joint concept        participate in the development of Joint         throughout the Army. The challenge now
of operations to be developed, given          functional concepts and integrated archi-       facing the Army is to not regress into
the change in current military operations     tectures by identifying supporting Space        the development of stove-piped capabili-
over the past two years? To maintain          capabilities to the warfighter.                 ties, but to support and participate in all
relevancy, the Army will have to adapt                                                        facets of Space development to ensure
its transformational and Space concepts       Conclusion                                      future capabilities are relevant to warf-
to the national requirements. To be able      The Army has had a prominent historical         ighter needs. Army concepts and archi-
to influence future Space, the Army will      role in the development and use of Space        tectures must be integrated and reflect
have to develop a stronger comprehensive      capabilities. Many changes to Space orga-       the relevance that the Army brings to the
concept for Space operations in support       nization and management have been pro-          Space mission area.
of the Objective Force along with a sup-      posed over the past few years, some of
                                                                                               Bill Furr serves as the plans director, G3, SMDC-
porting architecture. That architecture       which are now being implemented. While           West. His professional experience includes a degree in
must be forward looking with operational,     these changes, for the most part, are ben-       Geography and Environmental Science and an extensive
                                                                                               background in Tactical and Strategic level Intelligence.
system and technical perspectives that        eficial, they are not without challenges         He served on active duty (Army) for seven years before
truly support the ground warfighter. In       and should be closely watched through            being assigned to Director of Intelligence, Cheyenne
the past, the Army has had limited suc-       their implementation. It can be expected         Mountain Air Station, where he served as the chief of
                                                                                               Analysis. He still holds a Reserve Commission and
cess in telling a convincing story that led   that as the nature of warfare continues to       supports the NORAD and NORTHCOM J2, Deliberate
to development of future Space capa-          change as it has in the last couple of years,    Plans Division.

50         Army Space Journal Summer 2003