~320 attendees
Colorado Springs CO
GEN Dickinson, CDRUSSPACECOM
Keynote: “Mission Integration for All-Domain Dominance”
Highpoints:
- New UCP mission: Trans-regional missile defense. This is synergistic with missile warning/missile defense and space…Multi-mission integration
- A pressing need for industry focus: sustained on-orbit maneuver capabilities for Dynamic Space Operations
Detailed Notes:
Described where adversaries have advanced and changed. China, rapid increase in technology (up 150%), projected to have 1800 satellites on orbit by 2026 and 7900 by 2030. RU not as fast, but 530 satellites on orbit by 2031.
- Learned many lessons from war in Ukraine.
1. GPS Jamming. Remember that we can be in a degraded environment; our forces need grounding in fundamental capabilities
2. Need for consistent communications – Starlink
3. Imaging – call out to MAXAR, and the image of 40 mi RU armored column
- Triad convergence of USSPACECOM missions, especially with addition
- With all of our space capability, done a good job in interoperability (sharing info b/w systems), now we need to do more on integration. Integration is more about getting the right information, don’t necessarily need to know the source/where it came from.
· Along this line, in our role as Global Sensor Manager, how can we do a better job brining in non-traditional sensor data for SDA…
- All Domain Dominance…
· over 133 commercial mission partners; 168 SSA sharing agreements. These provide a tremendous dilemma for adversaries
· Global Sentinel…last one, 25 nations participated; in Feb 2024 we epect 32
· Nimble Titan, inherited with the bringing in of JFCC-IMD under new UCP role. This exercise is also with allies and partners; starting to incorporate natural synergies with our space exercises.
- Industry focus areas
· How we partner: at Vandenberg and the Commercial Integration Cell; and in the Springs at the JCO (JTF-SD Commercial Office). This increases capability and capacity, and allows our military to do some other functions.
· We need sustained maneuver capabilities for Dynamic Space Ops
· Tactically responsive space…how quickly capabilities are being put on orbit – promising
- Questions from audience:
· Difference b/w Missile Warning/Defense and Missile Defeat?
§ Traditionally we’ve focused on Midcourse to Terminal phase. This is traditionally the hardest phase of flight; also most dangerous and most costly.
§ Where we want to get to: before launch, during launch and in boost. We need capabilities across these phases
- Call-out by NDIA (Kevin Mortensen)…Industry really appreciates the USSPACECOM/J8-led Commercial Integration Working Group!
Lt Gen (ret) BJ Schwedo
Director, Institute of Future Conflict, USAFA
Keynote: Training Leaders for the Competition/Future Combat
Highlights:
- USAFA’s Multi-Domain Lab. Includes a cyber training range (cyber city). Cadets operate like an AOC developing a synergistic package that could include drones, cyber hackers, taking over missiles, taking over trains, then the package
Detailed Notes:
- Since 2001, so focused on GWOT/ISIS, didn’t see the growth of RU and CH. They’ve developed along two prongs
· Asymmetrical axis: co-orbital kinetic capabilities, cyber…
· Symmetrical: their capabilities look a lot like ours. They are finding “patriots”, who are teaching them our way of war; a USAF weapon school grad is in AUS awaiting extradition
· Lessons from watching Russia & Ukraine:
§ Surprised how world rallied (EU, NATO, rest of world)…cited UN votes
§ Concerned about RU losses
§ CH does want Taiwan’s capabilities/infrastructure…so would want to take without fighting
- Cadets amazingly smart. 2-3 patents a year, tons of questions. Space fascinates them.
- ROTC cadets are involved as well…via “Azimuth”, a USSF program with 3x summer programs, and during academic year participate in Multi-Domain Lab via Teams. In development is a “MD in a Box”, and to roll-out the MDL to OTS.
- TikTok cyber equiv. of fentanyl
Combatant Command panel
- RADM Curt Renshaw, CENTCOM J3 (CC)
- BGen Mark Clingan, EUCOM DJ3 (EU)
- Col Derrick Frank, NORTHCOM/NORAD J84 (N/N)
CC: Stood up SpaceCent last November
? What would you like to see space deliver?
CC: Resilience. More speed and more bandwidth. We are moving towards more commercial partnering such as Starlink, and there’s a lot more room for other comm’l providers. Gov’t not necessarily on the lead of this tech.
EU: Greater tracking and early warning, especially for hypersonic weapons. AI and Machine Learning to tied in with space capabilities. In light of UKR, EUCOM is confident in commercial space capabilities. Starlink (especially initially was fundamental, and vital for reliable C2)
? How are GCCs integrating with USSPACE?
CC: Strong history of good relationships with adjacent GCC; with Space as a GCC…not just adjacent but overlapping. Space Component is working very well. We’re really getting a better understanding of reliance – we’re at least 5 years behind in appreciating it; helping tons.
N/N: Our Global Info Dominance Experiment (GIDE) – helping with opportunity costs; and overall campaigning (time/space/purpose)
EU: Space component will be realized in the coming months.
? Too dependent on space, or on commercial?
We want tools and capabilities that make advanced ops in a denied environment
Commercial capabilities getting targeted – legal considerations
CC: really need to integrate OPLANS with SPACECOM
? Question on the long range fight/arctic?
CC: Resiliency of space assets – huge
NC: Arctic…a lot more activity; menti?Won of combined CH-RU sail; access to ready trained forces able to operate in the arctic
EU: b/c of harsh arctic environment, some things easier from space
? Working with partners in space?
CC: lots of partners, key is understanding what they can bring. Working together drives working better together. Biggest impediment: our limitations due to classification. But less issues when we’re talking commercial.
? How much does the Franctional Orbital Bombardment worry you [CH demo a couple of years ago]?
EU: has to be factored in.
? USSPACECOM as the supported command in the future, can you see that happening?
EU: well, SPACECOM can…
CC: Yes, can envision
Gen (Ret) William Shelton
Former Commander, Air Force Space Command
“National Security Space: Past, Present, Future”
Highlights:
- Many challenges if space is truly critical infrastructure. We must have capabilities to protect, defend and attack.
- Revolution in commercial space, due to pace
- Data and space traffic management – key concern: integration of data (latency, security, integrity)
Detailed Notes:
Early days of NSS:
- Failures were lessons learned not necessarily congressional hearings
- Some amount of classification
- Slide rules and handbuilt satellites
- Cost to launch was so high, packed with redundancy
Launch: Since 50s/60s, not a fundamental breakthrough in launch technology
- Still hard to get to space
- No reusable
Counterspace:
- Not really a new concept (now), ASATS – tests in the 60s, even nuclear-tipped
- Now we have more protected comms, protected MW, GOS…
Others are getting better too…CH is sprinting, we have a marathon pace. Of course, it’s a lot easier when you are stealing tech.
2007 CH ASAT
- Incredible intel on likely day time; had tabular printouts of likely objects that could be hit
- It occurred when predicted and hit what we predicted (we were hoping for a near-miss)
- I hope the Rest of World is not thinking this ithe thing to do.
Since 2007 policy questions (and development) has been hampered
- No president wants to start an arms race in space
- Finally, Pres Obama took a daily brief, and asked…what are we doing about this, re: defending ourselves?
- Drove lots of policy discussion on offensive, defensive, active defense.
- Pres Trump continued
- After a bit of a paus, Pres Biden has too
- Finally on the right path.
Commercial – evolution, but feels like a revolution b/c of the pace. There’s been lots of good ideas. With venture capital, can they cross the valley of death – mixed results. Mandate has become, increased use of commercial in NSS. Thinks there re some areas we will need military grade…MW, Protected SATCOM.
I’m the skunk at the party…
- Is there a reset coming?
· How many broadband constellations do we need? Elon – 1st one; great. What will sustainment look like?
· Small launch companies perhaps following suite.
Traffic Management – I’m most passionate here.
- In LOE, lots of constellations, lots of crowding. Now there are more NSS there, and ASAT test debris and other debris, plus human spaceflight.
- We had the 25 year rule, had to clear orbit by 25 yers.
- Big sky theory… not very satisfying now. Think about launch windows. Adre we going to get to seconds?
- Debris Removal Capabilities: I’d love to see one that makes sense from both an Astro and business case perspective. Thus far, haven’t heard of one.
- Kessler effect – I’m really concerned, especially on LEO. CSpoC does great, but no ICAO like organization w/ regulatory and compellence.
- As we build more and more ground sensors, the integration of all this data…latency, security, integrity of data. DoD has tried and failed (replacing SPADOC). Gave We still haven’t succeeded…why is his so hard?
- Pres Trump assigned STM to DoC. FAA said “we’re ready”. Gen Shelton’s view on this type of thing…if you say you’re ready, you aren’t .
- Debate ensued, congress didn’t fund. So DoC has responsibility but no funding.
- No brownie points for STM for just US, must have international
- Ideal: just like aircraft…every satellite has a transponder
Deterrence:
- Classic deterrence theory re: How to keep space free of conflict. You have the capability to 1) impose costs on adversary and 2) deny adversary benefits they could reap.
- Requires offensive and defensive. But how do you deter if all counterspace is SAP? We are still running around with our hands tied.
- 2014 – I announced GSSAP in Orlando. Though some in the audience were going to pass out. If we are going to deter, we need to show some skin.
- Many challenges if space is truly critical infrastructure. We must have capabilities to protect, defend and attack.
Also:
- Space Force budgets have been very kind, but going forward, hard to predict what they will look like.
- With our increased commercial reliance, need to fiture da way to protect those sats (ergo, Navy protecting commercial shipping)
International Panel: One team, one fight
UK – AVM Paul Godfrey, Commander UK Space Command
AUS – Brigadier Christopher Gardiner, DG Space Operations
CAN – Bgen Mike Adamson, Commander, Canadian Space Division
Highlights:
- Within last 2+ years, stand-up of respective Space Commands
- Specifics on where each is looking for industry to focus, what their respective nation’s strengths are to contribute
Detailed notes:
UK: Our space governance. Since 2019 when NATO declared space an operational domain.
- 1 Apr 2021, UK Space Command stand-up with 6 people..now 500.
- In Nov 2021 issued National Space Strategy, followed by Feb 2022 the Defense Space Strategy.
- National Space Council and National Space Board
- SpaceCom: OT&E and warfighting. With our funding ($1.5B over 10 years), we don’t build the Death Star, we build the exhaust hatch
- UK finishing (?) an Integration Review, like US QDR – a recommitment to space. No new funding, but deciding where to spend. Not doing space for space sakes. Focusng on SATCOM, ISR and Counterspace.
CAN:
- First birthday in June for Space Division (this is equal to a Command). We saw a HUGE difference immediately. Went from an office to an operational entity. Reports to RCAF/CC, but a jointly manned org.
- Policy-wise. We are absent a national security strategy. There is significant effort driving federal to publish. But there is top cover for SpaceCom in the CAN National Defense Strategy. Likely won’t include ASAT, but yes on other space control type things.
- NORAD modernization is fueling the space component, buzzword in Ottawa.
AUS:
- Jan 2022 stood up Space Ops Command. Does policy, futures and ops (OT&E)
- AUS Defence Strategy Review – we’ve historically offset lack of people or funding with time.
· This review drove integrated warfighting force across all 5 domains
- AUSMIN last month – key space items.
· Enhanced Space Cooperation – rec’d clear cooperation guidelines.
· SDA, deter **** (can’t read notes), assure access to space and to work together; combined training, exercises and ops.
CAN:
- Radarsat Constellation Mission (RSC), and Polar SATCOM modernization (for north of 65 degrees).
? Mission Strengths to contribute?
UK: Skynet – on orbit since 1969.
- We want to add max value and deconflict so we don’t buy same thing.
- Green door, really difficult
CAN: light speed
- We want to know where would like our investment to go? Gaps or cover down?
Regarding C2 systems
UK: Fan of, build the bare minimum and go from there. Somewhat of a build it and they will come.
- I walked into the JCO, and said, we need one of these. 18 mos later, we have one.
AUS: want a system to tell us what we don’t know.
On Industry:
AUS: for our industry…geography matters.
CAN: there’s a consortium of space industries (Space Canada). They are clamoring for info, especially in light of no NSS. We’ve worked more to have greater engagement
- SATCOM, RADARSAT (SAR) and SDA (Sapphire), with follow-on which will include 2 ground based and one on-orbit capability.
UK: we’ve likely frustrated industry for past 2 years. Good discussions, but no follow-up from us due to limited number of people in our command. We ended up cancelling a capability effort b/c companies didn’t really respond…alluded to UK lack of defining the requirements. Bid assessment a box checking exercise. Recent UK article on defence procurement being broken – agree.
Space lessons from UKR:
UK: resilience of Starlink, and how that will affect acquisition/procurement of next communication satellites; imagery satellites…just buy off shelf?; PNT – gotta have resilience
· With Brexit, we’re out of Galileo. Bonus in that is we’re looking t alternate PNT, and looking at PNT resiliency
AUS: how to bring in tech at point of need, with training/training system, etc. If we can’t then acq system is broken
CN: who C2’s the space fight in that region? Going forward, if the fight were to expand past just UKR. As we know, NATO declared space a warfighting domain in 2019, and Article 5 applies to space. Maybe NATO is the Babel Fish (Hitchhiker’s Guide…) of SDA;
Human capital aspect of your space capabilities.
AUS: Innovators! We’re resource-restricted. How to build positions…this is a fundamental crisis
CAN: space experienced people in CAN military…in and out, not dedicated. Canada does have a Special Space Badge. All services can earn it.
UK: This is tough. Great people, joint. Trying to get them into the command. Hard to get them back…for some/many can be a career foul. Navy is having trouble with personnel numbers, so gapping Navy space billets. Civil service is our continuity, but location is difficult (cost of living)
Panel: Integrating Commercial and Interagency
DS: Maj Gen Doug Schiess, Commander Combined Force Space Component Command
DJ: Dan Jablonsky, President and CEO, MAXAR Technologies
AL: Dr. Austin Long, Dep Director, Strategic Stability Strategy, Joint Staff/J5
Highlights:
- Growing synergy with commercial integration; still bigger policy issues as gov’t/military reliance on commercial grows
DS: Our role: plan, direct and execute ops for the joint warfighter.
Commercial Integration Cell – 10 companies. Focused on threats and info sharing; not using for effects.
DJ: Good, bad and the confusion, 2 for each
- Good: US/Allied tech advances and interoperability & sharing with allies. In commercial space, going very well…good regulatory and financial schemes. Sharing even with situational allies
- Bad: People know these capabilities are coming along (cyber, space)…overt, covert. Don’t leave commercial stranded; also…know how fast technology develops. They’re [adversaries] are going after it, stealing and replicating. They don’t have the same issues we have with dual-use…
- Confusing: How commercial deals with government. Especially if a small company. This is solvable through regulatory/legislative. Bigger one: big policy questions. When/how to deal with commercial capabilities in terms of defense/non-defense. Incumbent on gov’t to provide clarity to industry. We can react quickly!
AL: My office – ensure/help the interagency process support the warfighter.
- Big help recently on commercial remote sensing licensing. From the 2020 effort, he led the review. With guidance from the VCJCS (Gen Hyten)…gov’t needs to get out of the way of the US commercial sector.
- The changes have struck good balance and gave gov’t time to adapt.
- Looking forward to what commercial can do with this now.
? To Maxar: how are you factoring in non-earth imaging?
DJ: With SSC’s buy first, build last philosophy, glad to work with them.
- In 2015 one our own satellites hit by debris. It took us weeks and weeks to get NOAA approval to image our own satellite. Now this is non-regulated.
? To CFSCC: how are you integrating commercial? How has the CIC evolved
DS: First thing that comes to mind…SATCOM (9 of the 10 Commercial Integration Cell (CIC) companies), and there’s a commercial SATCOM office located with DEL 8. SDA…an area we need to work better. Need to bring in ALL capabilities, including commercial. How do we really do this…
- CIC evolution: We have a few military & civilian also in the CIC. The CIC is part of our battle rhythm…weekly Ops & Intel briefings, even from the east coast. Many companies send people out for 3 weeks at a time.
DJ: Having someone in resident is good…in the past, if something happened, who do I call…NRO, NGA, CIO…pick one, and then does that office/person get in touch with the right person
AL: Impressive now to see how quickly information/threats go from intel production to contacting the commercial entity.
? Does commercial become a target?
DS: We are working through this. Many times commercial/contractors flying satellites. What is inherently governmental as far as targets and what to defend.
On CASR:
DS: SSC is working through this; we’re part of the discussion. Welcome it, lot to work through. We can’t be fuzzy on it; or make it a Council of Trent debate
DJ: Maps are an intel product…
? Different command structure to implement commercial?
DS: No
DJ: Once things go on contract, people pay attention. Now just [coalition of the willing], based on relationship [bro-net].
DS: 1-2x per year the CIC Exec council gets together; and more frequent discussions as needed.
AL: Can be bewildering for a small business on all of the ways to potentially interject.
On re-standup of National Space Council
- Very vibrant, vital conversations
- National approach to CIS lunar; conversations ongoing today
DJ: I’m on the NSC User Advisory Group. Great for big/macro issues.
DS: Reconstitution of space capabilities is just one aspect. How to keep a capability going.
On JCO under JTF-SD:
DS: CFSCC works with JCO for SDA as well. I get notices all the time that a spacecraft has changed its behavior.
- Resilience of ground architecture. Cost 2x as much as satellites. Renaissance of ground (akin to proliferated systems)
Panel: Getting space capabilities to the tactical user
J8, Thomas Lockhart, SES, USSPACECOM J8
LM: John Schierling, Director Tactical Space, Lockheed Martin Space
L3: Joel Nelson, Strategy & Business Development, L3Harris Technologies
L3: Onboard reprogramming, onboard fire control…as industry, we can enable this.
On challenges to get space capabilities to tactical users:
J8: seems really hard to get operator requirements into acquisition programs. It [should] start with the ICD. KC-46 has taken 8 years – can’t rely on gov’t processes.
L3: when we work with NRO…they have cradle to grave. With DoD, so many acquisition organizations. We have an effort with SpRCO – pop-up requirement for automation came from the users. Expensive to retrofit.
J8: using Kessel Run, SkiCamp (in Utah)
On policies to get info to tactical users faster:
- Accreditation timelines slow down getting capabilities to the warfighter.
Comments