That’s the argument made by Jim Armor in an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review. He has considerable experience on this issue: he is a retired two-star general whose last position before retiring less than a year ago was as director of the National Security Space Office (NSSO). “[D]espite Air Force protestations that air and space are a seamless ‘aerospace’ medium, USAF priorities for space are clearly lower than for air superiority,” he writes. Its space situational awareness capabilities are limited, it suffers from an outmoded command and control system, and it has suffered from “horrific” cost overruns on a number of major space procurements, among other flaws.
What’s the solution? There are any number of alternatives (one idea of his he mentions in passing is creating an autonomous “Space Corps” within the Air Force analogous to the Army Air Corps prior to the creation of an independent Air Force), but the key is to get away from how space is currently treated by the Air Force. “[I]t is clear that the status quo, using existing Air Force management and doctrine, simply will not work in an age of an increasingly contested space domain. Support of a non-existent ‘aerospace’ regime not only prevents space from thriving, it equally undermines Air Force leadership of the vital air superiority mission.”
Support of a non-existent ‘aerospace’ regime not only prevents space from thriving, it equally undermines Air Force leadership of the vital air superiority mission.
Applause.
It’s ironic that a Service which grew out of the recognition that air and land warfare were different and required dedicated professionals schooled in each, with different training, culture, management, and operations concepts, has refused to acknowledge the same dichotomy exists between air and space. More so today than ever, and even more so tomorrow than today (which was also true of aviation).
The proper (appropriate) military tradition for space operations etc are the naval services, NOT the air services.
No, I don`t expect this sort of shift to happen (anytime soon).
The proper (appropriate) military tradition for space operations etc are the naval services, NOT the air services.
Taking a step back is not the answer. The Navy is definitely NOT the appropriate service for space warfare of tomorrow, to include military spaceplanes, remote sensing, on-orbit offensive and defensive operations, etc. Granted they have a long and storied history in comm/nav from space, but they progress of milspace in the next century requires a fresh look at space as its own medium for offensive/defensive ops and power projection rather than as a supporting medium for terrestrial operations. And the Navy is not the right service (none are really) to view space as a co-equal medium to land, sea, or air.
Typo,
I am guessing that SpaceMan was just saying that the oceans were a closer comparison as a medium to space, than air is to space — thus the Navy “traditions for operations” are closer to what a “Space Corps tradition for operations” will be.
I too think Armor is spot on, but I expect it will have to get a lot worse over at Space Command & SMC before enough people will be ready for a real change.
BTW, I think a “space corps” is ultimately the best answer. This not only parallels the “Army Air Corps”, but also the “Marine Corps”.
– Al
I am guessing that SpaceMan was just saying that the oceans were a closer comparison as a medium to space, than air is to space — thus the Navy “traditions for operations†are closer to what a “Space Corps tradition for operations†will be.
Okay, but I still don’t see that comparison to be valid. No service better understands the essence of global reach, global power, global vigilance like the world’s air services.
BTW, I think a “space corps†is ultimately the best answer. This not only parallels the “Army Air Corpsâ€, but also the “Marine Corpsâ€.
I agree 100%.
SpaceMan has it right. We should set this up for the long term, and in the long term spaceflight will be dominated by long travel times, difficult conditions, lack of easy resupply, and an extraordinarily harsh environment — having far more in common with defending the sea lanes than establishing air superiority.
– Donald
We should set this up for the long term, and in the long term spaceflight will be dominated by long travel times, difficult conditions, lack of easy resupply, and an extraordinarily harsh environment — having far more in common with defending the sea lanes than establishing air superiority.
Donald, I agree completely.
We got off on the wrong foot in both military space, and civil space (though the former was excusable, as it seemed obvious in the fifties and sixties that space was an extension of air, no matter how wrong that was).
I know several current and former USAF officers who also agree that “sea power” is a closer parallel to “space power”, although they are not too vocal about it.
Several of them use Mahanian “sea power” theory in their talking points, and at least one has written a paper on the subject.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/france1.html
FWIW,
– Al
While I haven’t researched or even contemplated the issue thoroughly, I suspect that a robust and effective “Space Force” would likely require its own unique model for operations that incorporated some elements & traditions from the air force, some from the navy, and others designed from scratch. Space is, after all, extremely different from both their traditional realms of operations.
As for getting off on the wrong foot in both military and civilian space way back when, let’s not forget that “it” derived (NASA, too) in large part from inter-service rivalry. Any chance that today’s net-centric integrated warfighters will approach the issue any more fairly today or tomorrow?
Quite a coup to get this article into the Space Review, Jeff. Kudos.