When the Army failed to recognize the significance of aerial combat
in warfare, back in the 1940s, its air corps broke away and became
the U.S. Air Force. More than 50 years later, the Air Force finds
itself under similar criticism for giving short shrift to military
operations in space.
Leading a preemptive campaign against critics is Maj. Gen. (s)
Brian A. Arnold, director of space and nuclear deterrence at the
office of the Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition. According
to Arnold, the service wants to become a "fully integrated
aerospace force." And those who accuse the service of being
"aircraft-centric," he said in a recent interview, don't
realize that "the resources we spend on space are enormous."
This fiscal year, the Defense Department will spend nearly $9 billion
on space programs. The Air Force manages between 85 percent to 90
percent of those projects, which account for about 10 to 12 percent
of the service's $70 billion annual budget.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, have questioned whether the
Air Force is the best choice for managing U.S. military space assets,
given that most of its dollars and programs have to do with air
operations. One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Robert Smith,
R-N.H., told an industry conference last month that he does not
see the Air Force as a "service dedicated to space power."
In the 2000 defense authorization bill, Congress ordered the creation
of a 13-member commission to probe military space management and
organization. That panel, chaired by former defense secretary and
Republican congressman Donald Rumsfeld, will assess the potential
costs and benefits of creating:
"America's future security and prosperity depend on our constant
supremacy in space. This commission is a long-awaited step toward
that goal," Smith said in a statement. "To achieve true
dominance in space, we must combine expansive thinking with a sustained
and substantial commitment of resources, and vest them in a dedicated,
politically-powerful, independent advocate for space power."
Smith wants the commission to "address the organizational
issues that have hampered this nation's maximum use of military
space."
Arnold, meanwhile, believes that there is no justification for
transferring the management of the military space program to any
other agency or newly-created service. This notion only came about,
he explained, because there is a perception that the Air Force is
too focused on air programs and, when budgets are tight, it dips
into the space accounts. Perceptions often become reality, said
Arnold. And they are "very hard to overcome." He noted
that, as far as space is concerned, the Air Force is "developing
new systems, fielding them and gaining capabilities."
Space dollars compete with more than just aircraft dollars, said
Arnold. They also are vulnerable to other non-Air Force defense
programs, such as ships or land vehicles, he added. "It's not
just the F-22 vs. space systems. The discussion should be taken
to a higher level ... It's an overall [Defense Department] resource
issue." The F-22 fighter plane is the Air Force's top acquisition
priority today.
In a recently published "white paper," Air Force Chief
of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan and Secretary F. Whitten Peters articulated
a strategic vision for how the Air Force will become an "aerospace
force." They contend that the first 40 years of the space age
were devoted largely to the exploitation of new capabilities. In
the future, they said, the United States will have to balance exploitation
against the need to control space as a new form of battle ground.
Control of both air and space, they added, increasingly is becoming
a prerequisite for successful military operations.
During the past 15 years, the paper said, "the barriers between
air and space planning and operations have substantially diminished."
As a result, "aerospace integration has been accelerating in
the past decade.
"The status of space as a sanctuary may come to an end,"
said the white paper. The upshot is a future military competition
in space.
The Air Force, said Arnold, is training and educating current and
future officers, so the service can transition from being an "air
power" to a "space power."
One of the primary educational tools, he explained, is the "aerospace
basic course" taught at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. "This
is a brand new course for all new lieutenants coming to the Air
Force," said Arnold. "It is tailored after the Marine
Corps basic course and gives all of our young troops a snapshot
of all the elements of the Air Force, to include a good amount of
space systems, how they are integrated and how they are used."
Another way to link air and space programs is the reorganization
of the combat operations center, where air wars are planned, said
Arnold. This will involve cultural changes, he added, in order to
look at the operations center as a "weapons system" where
space assets and aircraft work "seamlessly."
Developing the proper doctrine for aerospace operations is another
goal that the Air Force must achieve, said Arnold. He also believes
the service must invest more money on models and simulations that
will help military planners chart operations in space. "You
have to apply all the effects of space, all the physics of space,
that are different than when you operate in the atmosphere. Modeling
those properly takes a tremendous amount of effort."
Looking back to the early days of the service, Arnold asserted:
"We formed a separate Air Force in 1947, because there needed
to be some cultural changes, organizational changes and material
changes." At the time, Army leaders viewed long-range air capabilities
as an extension of artillery. "So they were unable to make
the [necessary] cultural and organizational changes" to accommodate
new air combat platforms and techniques.
Internal Changes
Arnold conceded that, if the Air Force is to become truly "aerospace,"
it must make substantive changes to its internal organization and
practices. Among the top priorities, he cited:
Looking ahead, however, he believes the nation must decide how
it wants to tackle the controversial issue of "space control."
The term refers to activities aimed at protecting U.S. spacecraft,
preventing enemies' satellites from gaining military intelligence,
and monitoring what other nations are doing in space.
"Other countries [such as Russia] have been involved in certain
aspects of space control already," said Arnold.
The United States needs to engage in a public debate on what is
acceptable under "space control," he stressed. "One
would think, logically, that you would have to have a debate for
strong space control before we venture out and make huge investments
in that area."
To believe that space will continue to be a "sanctuary,"
is misguided, he added. "Some day, some time, we are going
to have to be very concerned about protecting and preventing other
people from taking advantage of our forces" by using, for example,
spy satellites. "We need to develop those proper space control
measures to protect those systems that are vital to our national
security."
But Arnold cautioned that the "peaceful use of space is paramount
in our strategy of our use of space." Before the United States
decides to build space-based weapons to attack enemy satellites,
he said, "We ought to have dialogue and debate at the national
level."
Without an extensive debate, he said, the nation would remain unaware
of many potential "unintended consequences" of building
space weapons, such as triggering a new arms race in space.
The congressionally mandated space commission was installed last
month. During the next six months, the panel will receive testimony
and make recommendations on how the United States should use space
for national security purposes-the reliance on space assets to support
military operations and the potential costs and benefits of possible
space management reorganizations.
The Air Force is prepared to "get grilled" by the commission,
said a service official who asked to not be quoted by name. "We
have been gathering facts and statistics," in anticipation
of a barrage of questions on how the Air Force manages space programs.
Whatever recommendations are made by the commission, said the source,
"will be taken seriously." For that reason, he said, "we
are getting our ducks in a row."
Among the members of the commission are two former commanders of
U.S. Space Command: Retired Air Force Gen. Howell Estes and Retired
Air Force Gen. Charles Horner.
Other commissioners include Malcom Wallop, former U.S. senator
from Wyoming; Retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman, former chief of staff
of the Air Force; Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, former chief
of the Space and Missile Defense Command; Duane Andrews, former
assistant secretary of defense; Retired Air Force Gen. Tom Moorman,
former vice chief of staff of the Air Force; Robert Davis, former
deputy undersecretary of defense for space; Douglas Necessary, former
House Armed Services Committee staff member; and Retired Navy Adm.
David Jeremiah, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.