NSSA 2024 Defense and Intelligence Space Conference
Enclosed are summaries that provide a comprehensive review of the NSSA 2024 Defense and Intelligence Space Conference’s second day. These have been diligently compiled by our devoted PAS team members, Ivy and Jaelyn. The conference featured a lineup of keynote speakers, including:
- Keynote: Lt Gen DeAnna Burt, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Operations, Cyber, and Nuclear, United States Space Force
- Keynote: Hon Kristyn Jones, Performing the Duties of Undersecretary of the Air Force
- Keynote: Ambassador Oksana Markarova, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States
- Keynote: Dean Cheng, Senior Advisor, China Program, US Institute of Peace
- Keynote: Lt Gen Shawn Bratton, Deputy Chief of Space Operations, Strategy, Plans, Programs, and Requirements
- Keynote: Hon Frank Calvelli, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Space Acquisition and Integration
- Keynote: Derek Tournear, Director of Space Development Agency
NSSA 2024 Defense and Intelligence Space Conference
27 February
Keynote: Lt Gen DeAnna Burt, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Operations, Cyber, and Nuclear, United States Space Force
Overall Summary: Lt Gen Burt discussed the evolving space race into a strategic competitive environment, emphasizing competitive endurance and the importance of avoiding operational surprises. She outlined the three core tenets of avoiding operational surprise, denying first-mover advantage, and responsible counterspace campaigning. Burt highlighted the necessity of capabilities development, focusing on people and readiness, and the role of intelligence in space operations. She also addressed various questions on topics like the job’s nature, the theory of success, increasing geopolitical tensions, the role of CCMD components, norms of behavior, SPAFORGEN, and acquisitions achievements.
OTTI, Spaforgen, IMD, COMSPACEFORs.
CSO said the Space Race has evolved into a more complicated strategic competitive environment. Competitive endurance. Ensuring our adversaries never emboldened enough.
Three core tenets
Avoid operational surprise. SDA key. Detect and react to changes. Intelligence critical to effort. Satellite patern of life, intent. SDA requires fusion of ISR and cooperative reporting to produce timely decision making. Enabling appropriate responses to malign actors. Normalizing actions in domain. Bolster SDA framework.
Deny first-mover advantage. Visibility and predictability favors the first actor. Must shift balance to make attack on satellites impractical and self-defeating. Continue investment in resilient space order of battle. Resiliency through proliferation – complicate adversary targeting. Resiliency through rapid reconstitution – Victus Nox timeline.
Responsible counterspace campaigning. Protect ourselves from attack. Limit hazardous debris. Avoid compelling our rivals, but if necessary, we will protect our forces in a way that doesn’t foul the domain.
Four primary pillars of action
Capabilities Development. Must sharpen our model. Unified mission readiness. Organizing space force activities around mission areas. PNT, EW IMDs – consolidate mission-area readiness in a single organization. Aliging for ownership.
People and Readiness – OTTI and SPAFORGEN highlight. Realistic, threat-informed training through OTTI. OTTI umbrella term for distributed efforts and things to sustain combat readiness in realistic ways. OTTI like other services have their efforts. SPAFORGEN largely employed-in-place. Return to great power competition. Three phases – prepare, ready, commit. Prepare focused on personnel readiness, equip, etc. Ready about force elements conducting advanced prep. Commit sees resource-validated and ready to commit to CCMD CCs. Dedicated timelines for advanced training.
Final piece to present forces to CCMD commanders. Discussed SPACEFORCENTCOM successes. SPACEFORINDOPAC successes in integration. SPACEFORSPACE description of elements. Educating CCMDs on what space can bring to the fights. Recent support from INDOPACOM leadership.
Dependent upon intelligence. Lots of work to do.
Q: What’s your job like?
A: S3/4/6/7/10, a lot. We fight from our installations, so we are demanding of USAF for installation support. Described the responsibilities of the numbers.
Q: Theory of Success/Competitive Endurance
A: SDA key to success. Patterns of behavior, ability to distinguish is key. SDA is foundational intelligence in domain. STM to DoC is going to help us to focus on exquisite SDA. Denying firstmover advantage. Ability to take a punch is distribution. Provide options to protect and defend Joint force. We don’t seek a fight, but her job is to be prepared.
Q: Increasing geopolitical tensions, perspectives of what’s going on in space?
A: Congestion concern but we appreciate the different offerings from commercial. ASATs different than previous generations, and countries proving ASAT capability. Lasing and jamming, co-orbital also concerns. Awareness to know what everything is and where it is, how we absorb. We don’t want to foul domain. We are running out of time.
Q: CCMD components role
A: Space presentation to work things services work is key. Security cooperation work, teaching the Joint forces – much greater integration, customer coming to USSF for plans and engagement. Allowing force presentation to CCMD for CC to control.
Q: Compliment of norms of behavior strengthening U.S. and allies?
A: UK has led a lot of work. How the collective will respond – work on this is valuable. Discussing in wargames and exercises like Global Sentinel. How do we operate? How do we identify behaviors against norms? Italy, Norway, Japan added to larger coalition of nations. The more friends we have, the better.
Q: SPAFORGEN
A: 6 on/3 off left no room for advanced training, thinking/talking about the threat. Every force does a force presentation for dwell, operations, etc. How do we shape as we are employed-in-place? When in commit, presented to daily global mission, focused on ops and combat. Prepare and ready phases are key for that preparation and training in order to present forces ready for high-end fight.
Q: Exciting for young entrants. IMDs also exciting.
A: How we put together levers of readiness under a single commander. 2SOpS command experience shaped it – sustainment frustrations, reporting back to SPO. Operational, cyber, intelligence, sustainment squadrons under single IMD. Improvements in responsiveness of IC, sustainment improvements for GPS (including OCX management), eliminating stovepipes. Outbrief CSO in March on how pilot has gone.
Q: Accomplishments USSF has made on acquisitions.
A: Credit to Hon. Calvelli, tenets of acquisition success. SDA success. How do we look differently of how we do business? How do we leverage assembly lines like we did on Victus Nox? What can we bring left to launch with the awesome launch partners we have? How do we close the loop on sensors to plug/play capabilities quickly to build in 12 months and make operational in five months? Don’t want to oversell the one instance, but it is a pathfinder of how we can do things. Want to see more.
Q: Dynamic Space Operations with Lt Gen Shaw, share how we embrace/adapt to new warfighting environment?
A: Maneuver without regret – “no one kicks ass without tanker gas” concept applies to space, too. If I have resilient capabilities, I could fight through events. Flying capabilities before all receivers can be fielded. Satellites can die in orbit – how do we move capabilities out of the way, could we refuel for longer life, etc.? Debate on dual-use capabilities. Adversaries don’t care, so we have to talk about art of possible – services to buy or USSF build own capabilities.
Q: OTTI – Environment has changed. How critical is training for preparation? Fight tonight?
A: $340M from Congress last year. It’s a long name, multi-use range. The Nellis, the Aberdeen, etc., for the USSF. Live, virtual, constructive all required. Moody Suter stood up Nellis to prepare the guys going into Vietnam. How do we respond to the enemy vote?
Q: Impressive to see momentum of USSF. With Competitive Endurance, one key factor is SDA. Understanding and avoiding surprise.
A: Will come through all-source intelligence, but also how we share with partners. OSD/Policy new guidance on blue capabilities. S2 adamant about providing information on threat capabilities. M2M sharing data across DoD, with partners, etc. DARC capabilities in UK, AUS, U.S. will be a pathfinder, we will continue to build capability with the same level of understanding to respond effectively.
Q: What keeps you up tonight?
A: Having our forces ready to fight tonight. OTTI key in this, working with Congress to resource. Have to have operators ready to go at a moment’s notice. Readiness, simulators, ranges, etc. a part of this. Victus Nox showing us a strong industrial base is key to future success – launch, buses, sensors. Echo Calvelli – don’t lowball the bids. We need industry. Capabilities can’t come slowly or over-budget. How can you quickly deliver on-time and under budget.
Keynote
Hon Kristyn Jones, Performing the Duties of Undersecretary of the Air Force
Overall Summary:
-Challenges and Resiliency Efforts: Highlighted the significant threats from violent extremists, Iranian and North Korean aggression, and particularly the pacing challenge posed by China. Jones stressed the urgency of deterring conflict, especially regarding Taiwan, and the critical race for superiority in space. She outlined efforts towards creating a more resilient space order and reoptimizing for a fundamentally different competition, emphasizing the integration of commercial space capabilities and the importance of rapid, realistic proposals from the industry.
-Reoptimization and Budget Concerns: Jones discussed the reoptimization of space capabilities to address counterspace technologies and the modernization required for global power competition (GPC). She highlighted the disastrous impacts of budget delays on space architecture and urged lawmakers to pass budget bills promptly to avoid losing ground to adversaries.
Challenges
-Israel and Ukraine are facing conflicts. Violent extremist threats continue to pose threats. Iranian and NK aggression.
-China is by far our pacing challenge. PRC represents the most serious challenge.
-If we allow Russia to prevail, China will draw the conclusion that the US and its allies lack the will to protect world order.
-Xi Jinping plans to reunite Taiwan with China. War with the PRC, or anyone else is not inevitable. Our strategy is to deter. If deterrence fails we must be ready to fight and prevail.
Race for Superiority
-We are in race for superiority and this is especially true in space. Since OIs were created, we’ve made considerable progress.
Resiliency Efforts
-PWSA. This is moving us towards a more resiliency space order of battle. It expands MW/MT serving as the backbone of CJADC2.
-We’re working together to create a new GMTI capability. We’ll work shoulder to shoulder with the NRO. This is a new start in FY24 so delays will inhibit progress.
-Appropriations, we’re five months behind. If they aren’t passed soon there will be disastrous impacts.
Reoptimization
-Today, the competition we have to prepare for is fundamentally different.
-China is fielding a wide range of counterspace technologies to disrupt and degrade US capabilities. There’s an urgent need to modernize and reorient.
-We’re driving towards a Space Force purpose built for GPC.
-Merchant marine transitioning into Navy. Space domain is no longer relatively safe. We’re in a contested domain and the job is very different. SF must be able to secure the domain.
-Space is the ultimately high ground in competition or conflict.
-SDA, space control, MWMT, comms, battle management all play a big role.
Reoptimization Key Decisions
-Integrated Capabilities Office, integrating efforts across both services to achieve air and space superiority.
-Space Futures Command will consist of three centers. Concepts and technologies center. Wargaming center. SWAC.
-We will reprioritizing S&T pipelines. This must be based on future operational concepts.
-Career paths are going to be redesigned. By this fall we will have a common integrated training course combining cyber, intel, operations.
-Integrating commercial space capabilities. Commercial Space Strategy. We don’t have a firm date on when this will go live. It will be aligned with DOD.
-SSC established Tac SRT pilot program to meet space awareness needs. Tac SRT is now live and supporting four combatant commands.
-Improving relationships with allies and partners. Updated classification policy expands information within US government and reduces barriers with partners.
Competitive Endurance
-Space superiority when necessary while also providing long term stability.
-Competitive endurance has three pillars. We needed to reoptimize for GPC.
Consequences of the Budget Delays
-A year long CR will have devastating impacts on the Department. It will undue effects of critical space architecture. We’ll lost ground on sensors and kill chain tools. We’ll see a decrease in space launch community by 70%.
-Most devastating impact is the time we have standing still while adversaries are moving forward. This is time we cannot afford to lose.
-I urge lawmakers to pass all bills. The lack of a budget negatively impacts our programs and our people.
How Industry Can Help
-We need to move fast and we need to have realistic proposals that can deliver on cost and schedule.
IC & DOD Integration
-Space is the ultimate high ground so the intel capabilities we have are moving into the space domain. We need to look at how we partner so we can have end to end effects.
-We need seamless integration. GMTI, there’s been a lot of work. Same with no policy and how we operate.
-How do this work for the larger ecosystem?
Reoptimization Priorities
-A lot of the investment decisions had already been made with OIs but we realized we didn’t have the right organizational construct.
Budget Roll Out
-This is challenging because we still don’t have 24 and 25 was based on 24. We may have to revisit some of our strategies. The official unveiling is on the 11th.
-SF doesn’t have the O&M budget that some of the others day so there are impacts to long term planning. We’re going to continue to accelerate our efforts.
[End]
Keynote
Ambassador Oksana Markarova, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States
Overall Summary:
–Battlefield Update and Russian Threats: Ambassador Markarova provided an update on the challenging situation in Ukraine, including the critical need for ammunition and advanced equipment to counter Russian forces effectively. She emphasized the importance of continued support from the US and allies, the significant degradation of Russian forces, and the urgent need for satellite capabilities and technology to improve battlefield effectiveness.
–Technology and International Support: The ambassador underscored the role of technology and international support in sustaining Ukraine’s defense efforts, highlighting the competitive advantages of freedom and democracy. She called for increased investment and assistance to help Ukraine not only during the conflict but also in its subsequent rebuilding.
Battlefield Update
-Last two years have been very difficult.
-We’re running out of ammunition. Front line is more than 800 miles. We are seeing some of their advancements but I wouldn’t call them big wins. They’re relying on Iran and NK.
-If we get continuation of support, especially from the US… Please reach out to your representatives so that we do not lose this momentum.
Russian Threat
-We have degraded Russian armed forces at a very significant rate. Russia has lost almost 400,000.
-There’s been personnel and equipment losses. They’ve scaled production and they’re trying to produce more but they have to go to Iran and NK for missiles.
-There have been shortages but Russia is still a very large country. They’re trying to weaponize everything.
Russian Nuclear & Space Threats
-Nuclear, we’re very concerned. March 2022 they occupied our nuclear station and they still occupy it and they’re holding hostage the personnel. They aren’t able to sleep, eat, rest, and have the pressure of being held by the gun. They’ve occupied this for two years. That’s a nuclear threat in itself.
-We don’t have long range equipment. We desperately need it to be able to reach all of the territory and the bases.
-We need good satellite capabilities, access to data, use of AI so that we can have awareness and be accurate. This is important to perform attacks but also to defend.
Technology Shaping the Battlefield
-Technology has been very important to Ukraine even before the war.
-Since the war, we’ve realized we need to be as creative as possible. A lot of people have volunteered and we have a lot of super bright IT people.
Message to Industry
-Thank you for saving lives and helping us.
-Please do more, reach out to us, and please put Ukraine on your map as a place of investment. Invest in us not just in the war but also in our success afterwards.
Security Assistance & Congress
-Urgency, we needed this yesterday.
-We need equipment. We’re still seeing deliveries of supplies from over the summer but on the battlefield, we’re running out. We have nothing new on the way right now.
Competitive Endurance
-The competitive advantages of the US is freedom and democracy. This is very important even in peaceful times.
-Everything is so interconnected. For the US to support our defense, it supports our democracies but also the lessons learned for what needs to change, what needs to be developed, what are the successes.
[End]
Keynote
Dean Cheng, Senior Advisor, China Program, US Institute of Peace
Overall Summary:
CCP Perspectives and Space’s Role: Cheng analyzed the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) view on space and information as crucial elements in modern warfare, stressing the importance of establishing information dominance. He discussed the PLA’s focus on information dominance and the significance of space in enhancing terrestrial activities and goals.
Weaknesses and Commercial Companies: The discussion also covered CCP’s approach to space traffic management (STM) and the strengths and weaknesses of both China and the US in space and information domains. Cheng highlighted the dual nature of some Chinese commercial companies and the competitive edge the US could maintain through its commercial industry.
CCP Perspectives on the US & space
-The world has moved from the industrial age to the information age. The currency of power has changed. It’s the ability to gather, move, collect, analyze information and exploit it. Space is an essential part to this.
-Space matters above all for how it supports terrestrial activities and goals. Space is seen as very dense in terms of technologies.
-From the CCP’s perspective, systems engineering skills are seen as portable.
-Space supports the PRC’s concept of deterrence. Chinese concept of deterrence doesn’t align with the wests. “Making your enemy bend or bow to your will” includes coercion. Shaping perceptions, demonstrating will, affecting the other sides calculus, this is how the Chinese see deterrence.
-For the CCP, the lack of allies is not seen as a weakness. China generally has not had allies and yet that hasn’t stopped them from dominating Asia in the past.
-An alliance that can’t seamlessly share information, that’s perceived as potential weakness. They see how long we’ve been working to resolve this. They see us struggling to overcome this.
-No other Asian nation has more recent combat experience than China. The US has not fought a space war and has not fought a space war with a peer competitor. The US is much more dependent on space. For PLA, the battlefield will be in their front yard and they won’t have to rely as much on space.
-Naval warfare, the US is the most experienced but 40 years have passed since our last fight.
-PLA Strategic Support Force. From their perspective, establishing information dominance is the key to winning the next war.
-Dessert Storm made the PLA realize space is a key factor in allowing smaller forces to be more agile and capable.
-TTPs, countering American capabilities is one thing but that doesn’t mean you’ve countered the broader coalition.
CCP STM
-They’ve been talking about how can they apply AI to STM. It’s a key area of investment.
CCP Weaknesses & Known US Weaknesses
-Chinese are persistent and consistent. They write five year plans and it doesn’t change very much through those five years.
-Their weakness, authoritarian doesn’t prevent innovation, but something might not come along under it.
-Strength, the Chinese know how important information is. They will even steal it if they need to. The US sometimes leaves an open door.
Chinese Commercial Companies
-There are some Chinese commercial companies whose budgets come from CCP, whose leaders are dual hatted.
-There are actual commercial companies. Under Xi Jinping, there’s a deep yearning to catch up and be superior. I do think the US, we’re likely to win because of our commercial industry, and China there’s that false reality where they want you to grow and be successful but not too much.
[End]
Keynote
Lt Gen Shawn Bratton, Deputy Chief of Space Operations, Strategy, Plans, Programs, and Requirements
Overall Summary: Emphasizes the strategic imperative for the USSF to be forward-looking, integrating tightly coupled mission needs with capability development in light of GPC. The establishment of the Space Futures Command (SFC) as the fourth Field Command underlines this strategy, focusing on experimentation, wargaming, and delivering mission-area design to ensure the USSF can prevail in future conflicts.
SecAF AFA GPC announcement, specifically Futures Command. The force we need.
-Lt Gen Burt a hero amongst us. Talked about everyone on the lineup has given good info. Relevant timelines and being able to operate.
-As CSRO, role to define services objective force, program as best as possible with resources. And state of force design process. End state to make things work in conflict.
-Long-term success in GP environment requires us to be forward looking. Tightly coupled mission needs with capability development. SecAF has charged examination of this in light of GPC. USSF answer for this was SFC as fourth FIELDCOM.
-Specific responsibilities experimentation and wargaming, delivering mission-area design. Inform our thinking on military utility of any capability. Focus and prioritization to deliver. Building on SWAC by adding concepts and tech center and adding wargaming center and placing all three under single command. Future warfighting concepts and strategies to prevail in combat. Concepts and tech will take Joint and service requirements and overlay capes to identify gaps. Looks some like current AFRL efforts and with some efforts in SQ. Wargaming center will tease out military utility and will inform future force design. Wargaming center will leverage OTTI investments, explore concepts to determine value to Joint and USSF, incorporate lessons learned to future concepts. SWAC — didn’t want to perturb good work they’re doing now other than movement.
-We need to leverage what’s existing in industry, where does it make sense to partner. We can improve on IA partnerships, communication — where are we limited, communicating to them so that maybe they could share burden.
-GPC is incredible opportunity to optimize, like CSO said at AFA Warfare.
-It’s clear we need to be prepared now, next year, and any year after that.
Q: Defining and refining ToS tenets. What areas of long-term emphasis reinforce the three tenets?
A: Force design is not new idea. Determining the force we need and the strategy, then drawing the line from that to list of actual forces, spacecraft on orbit, C2 systems, then people. Requirements traceability needs to be there, we need to be able to articulate that, and this is what CSO has asked for. We will keep proving things like MW/MT to joint force, but there is new mission for USSF. Some things like networks in space, things that were done in other domains, are new missions. What do we need to develop for this? [Standup of STARCOM almost killed me.] In charge of standup of Space Futures Command. Working to build out the team of colonels.
Q: Timeline of standup?
A: Working on military assignments, then civilians. Task Force Tango model. 10-15 people in place. A lot of this exists and it’s pulling it together, navigating the DoD process of new org and then the process of standing up. Task force in place in summer, hopefully IoC in place by end of year. STARCOM was about nine months, and this is easier. The long pole is staffing through the Pentagon.
Q: Concepts and technologies center — which concepts and technologies are at front of mind?
A: Cislunar and SAML. Concepts right now that haven’t proven through to military utility. Operating environment, on-orbit refueling. We should be doing demos. What processes are we doing for analytics of military utility? What’s going to be key to winning the war? Here’s the difference that capability makes in the fight. We like the things, we think there’s value, and that’s what Futures is going to do. Some things to work out on who does what, but the idea is this place is where people examine the utility. Used
Q: How are activities informed by threat, Joint elements, etc.?
A: Time horizon key, and futures we want to be focused on the future. What’s the threat in 5-, 10-, 15-year horizons? Certainly working in 5 and out. Will tap into IC on building elements of this.
Q: Do you see a role for AI?
A: Yes, how to you examine military utility. When does it make sense on this. For USSF, needs to have
a place for people to go to deliver assessment for military utility.
Q: How will wargaming look?
A: All wargaming will go to wargaming center, be future-focused. Schriever, Battle School are forward-looking. Schriever is under Del10, what all moves over. We are figuring it out and will have to take it to the boss.
Q: Do you envision partners participating in wargames?
A: It is about international partnerships with Schriever War Games. Will be expanding this.
Q: Digital, immersive tech, IR/AR?
A: M&S is a shortfall in wargaming — disappointing. SWAC did a great job in M&S with Battle School. For test services, trying to pull digital models from places like IC to satisfy DT/OT. Probably don’t need high-fidelity models in concepts. Maybe models gain fidelity as they go through SWAC process.
Q: Any changes in SWAC?
A: I want to give them capacity in my role of 5/8. We owe Dr. Partch and team more capacity. Haven’t talked to them specifically on Battle School and wargaming. But they have great work on helping us with resourcing decisions we have to keep intact — first thing for SWAC is do no harm.
Q: Missed
A: Fielded force what we have now. Program force with Calvelli now. Projected force are new missions and what we haven’t yet funded. Not just sensors but how many Guardians. What’s the right side for USSF? How many squadrons? What’s MilCon footprint? Have to mature process.
Q: Will SWAC make more models available to industry?
A: Modeling they use for input has to continue. SSC trying more and more to reach out, happening more across acquisitions. Happy to take input on how industry wants to take in input from industry.
Q: How do you see SFC interacting with other FIELDCOMS?
A: Process in existence in STARCOM on capability development. DOTMLPF-P. SpOC and STARCOM own most of it — have to be tight coupling with them and with SSC. If an input to Futures, that’s fine. As team stands this up, we will pull more S&T in.
Q: Tech needs arise, how do you link tech with futures?
A: DSO is concept behind OSAM, and refueling specifically. Need for SFC is the military utility piece. Likely will have to include industry to open the door for ideas. Futures can inform the S8 on this.
Q: Informs the “Buy what we can.”
A: What if there was no MILSATCOM? Commercial can probably largely satisfy our demand. Let’s put analytics behind this and wargame the concept. In SWAC capability design, they consider these things today. Have to find a way to explore these ideas. Have to be clear that this is going to be a safe place to explore. Industry are the experts, so come help us out.
Competitive Endurance
-Objective Force. This is the end state of our force design process. As we look at organize, train, and equipe, we’re shaping with three things in mind, avoiding operational surprise, deny first mover advantage, and responsible counterspace campaign.
GPC & Space Futures Command
-Secretary has challenges us to really rethinking our structure. We saw there was a need for a Space Future Command as a standalone field command. Responsibilities include exploring technologies and making concept viable. This will inform our thinking.
-SFC will build on SWAC by adding a concepts and technologies center and a wargaming center.
-We’ll develop future concepts and strategies for combat.
-Concepts & Technologies Center, team will collaborate across the S&T community, through leadership, SQ. They will send results of concepts and technologies over to the wargaming center.
-Wargaming Center will explore the technology to determine utility. They’ll leverage investments in OTTI. We look to incorporate lessees learned.
-SWAC, experts there will keep working.
-The newness piece of SFC is mostly in the concepts and technologies center.
-You see SSC Front door helping us understand what the market can offer.
-Futures Command is intended to provide unity of effort. Futures Command will be central and a key part in getting after objectives.
International Affairs & Partnerships
-This is an area needing improvement.
Areas of Long-Term Emphasis
-Force design is not a new idea. We’ve been doing this and we continue to mature processes.
-Pulling everything together for competitive endurance and clearly tracing requirements….
-We will keep providing PNT, MW, milsatcom. There’s new missions coming and we need offensive and defensive capabilities for the space domain.
Timeline of Space Futures Command
-I’m already pulling the team in place. I immediately called the assignment folks.
-I’ve got about 10-15 people that will be in place by the end of summer.
-The easy part is SWAC which we’re not touching. Wargaming we’ve touched on.
-A lot of this is just puling it together. We aren’t starting from scratch.
-We’ll have the taskforce in place by this summer and IOC this year.
Concepts & Technologies Center
-A couple technologies and gaps at the top of mind for this center, Cislunar, SAML, those are concepts right now that haven’t proven all the way through military utility. What process do we run that through so we can make the assessment? Is the key to the next war on orbit refueling? I need some analytics that will show the key differences that will be made in the fight.
-AI, how do you turn the idea into military utility? Whose job is it to figure that out?
-There’s got to be a time horizon as you’re exploring concepts and technologies. I think hopefully everything will fall into the five years and out time horizon.
Wargaming Center
-I think all wargaming will go to the Wargaming Center but we haven’t made decisions on that yet.
-I think we’re going to chase down the Schriever wargaming thing.
Tying in a Digital Environment
-For sure modeling and sim, that’s a shortfall we have. SWAC does a great job at this.
-Pulling models from SWAC and the IC into the testing environment to satisfy DT…
SWAC
-I want to give them more capacity. We owe the team more capacity I hope we can figure that out in this process.
-Largely out intent however is to leave SWAC untouched.
Objective Force
-The objective force, we’re talking to Gen Saltzman about this nonstop right now.
-Fielded force, program force, objective force, being able to very clearly define how many guardians is this and what is the right size of the SF and how many squadrons and putting all of these pieces together.
SFC Interaction with Other Field Commands
-In the capability fielding piece, SpOC and STARCOM really own those, STARCOM on training and SpOC on operations piece.
-SDA, Space RCO, SSC, SQ, there’s got to be a tight coupling there.
-As we stand this up, we’re going to pull all these folks into the task force.
On Orbit Logistics
-Dynamic Space Operations… on orbit logistics, we’ve leaned towards fueling. Proving the military utility piece, this is great for Futures Command.
-There’d have to be interaction to open the door for ideas.
-Secretary is very interested in the technology piece.
[End]
Keynote
Hon Frank Calvelli, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Space Acquisition and Integration
Overall Summary:
Prioritizes satellite launches, transitioning from RD180 engines, and improving ground infrastructure.
Faces challenges in completing key programs and emphasizes rapid technology updates and executable RFPs for timely deliveries.
Stresses collaboration between the IC and DOD, particularly in space development, to address emerging threats.
Highlights concerns over budget constraints impacting new starts in 2024 and the critical need for program completion to maintain credibility.
FY24 Priorities
-I really like that Derek cut a deal with MDA. It’s great.
-SDA did an amazing last year. Starting this year in 24 they’ll start launching 160 of T2. Key for SDA this year is getting the ground infrastructure in place and getting sats on orbit.
-RD180s, we’re finally getting off of those.
-This March we have WSFM. SSC got it to the launch complex and we’re waiting for a launch date. Maybe the 22 or 28.
-NRO Milestone B. NRO is in great shape. I spent time with the team and it should go over very smooth. If we don’t get the budget passed we can’t do much with it.
-Classifications and SAP stovepipes, we’re putting emphasis on taking programs out of SAPs.
-OCX, MGUE1, Atlas. My three troubled adopted children. OCX just announced another slip. We’re pushing the sign off to this fall and operations come April 2025.
–MGUE1… they are in low race initial production.
-Atlas, they’re on track to deliver real capability this year. We should see operations in 2025 timeframe.
-Next Gen OPIR phase 2, we’re pushing for this. Sister program in GEO, hopefully in testing this year and the payload shows up this spring.
-GPS III vehicle ready to go. We have three additional on the ground that we’re looking at launch cadence.
-GSSAP, looking to launch next systems in a year.
-Awarding NSSL Phase 3 is a priority for this year. Awarding lane 1 this summer and lane 2 in the fall.
Challenges
-We’ve got to keep focus on OCX, MGUE, Atlas, we need to get these over the finish line.
-Net Gen GEO payload I want to make sure it shows up this year
-SDA adoption. SDA rocks. One we get an operational ground in place in September, I need to get people actually using them. This year we need to get T1 on orbit and actually using the services.
-Classification, I want to bring the majority of space programs down to the TS level. That’s a priority for this year.
Tenets & Formula
-SF, there’s nothing that drives us to very large vehicles. Going smaller allows speed and we’re seeing that with the great work SDA is doing.
-You have to know what it takes to build a satellite. You need to fundamentally understand otherwise you can’t write a good RFP and challenge assumptions.
-We need to understand how industry operates.
-Ability to do tech refresh significantly faster. Derek is onboarding every two to three years.
-We have the tools and now it’s all about execution. Our focus needs to be on making sure RFPs are executable.
-Delivering on cost and on schedule programs that works, that’s our job. Every time we overrun a program we rob our future. Every time I have to pull money from the future to help a past program, we are robbing the US capability.
Differences Between NRO and DOD
-Both orgs have great people. The difference, it’s a different job. NRO, we controlled more. Now it’s a lot more collaborative. It’s a little bit different in terms of authorities.
Challenges Meeting GPC
-In order to meet the threat it’s about speed and integration.
-Space is the great enabler. We need to get capabilities out there faster and integrated properly.
CR Impacts
-Secretary drove OIs in 2022. That was the approach to modernize against the threat. Most of that is new starts in 24.
-This is awful. Derek might have be able to do T2. We can’t move forward with GMTI. It’s crippling.
OCX
-The program is close. We’ve been meeting biweekly with the program managers.
-What I don’t get, why would somebody want this reputation ruining stain in the papers all the time? Why wouldn’t a company put their best and brightest on it and get the program off the books?
-NASA, NRO, IC, Civil, they’re ready this. Wouldn’t you want to just fix this and get it done?
Atlas
-We’re path to replace functionality. Currently program manager and previous have done a great job at driving the program but we have a lot to go.
GMTI Requirements
-Gen Burt and Gen Bratton put the requirements together and they’ve done a great job. It’s on its way to get approved and it’s been a community wide effort.
-We really would like the IC’s help with this. We don’t need to reinvent. IC and DOD need to get together and look at the instruction for national systems from the 80s and 90s and make them include space.
-Technology has changed dramatically. Team at NRO is great.
Space Development Agency
-We need to get the operational ground in place. I think once we have that in place and the sats are on orbit in September we need to make sure the services are involved.
-The services have been watching and they’re interested and we need to make sure they’re ready to onramp once the services are available.
Space Future Command & Reorg Impacts
-They need to send out the demand signal for what R&D they want. Having the Command give us key technologies they want us to focus on, that’ll help AFRL and other orgs.
-We really want capabilities we can actually employ and help with operations.
Authorities
-Two authorities I’d like, using OTAs over 500 million dollars…
Space AQ Council
-I love it. Next one we’re going to talk laser comm then later on satellite control.
-We’ve talked about MW/MT at LEO MEO layer. So far we’ve had a lot of great conversations.
Fixed Price Contracts & Push Back from Industry
-Industry needs to learn to bid properly. Quit low bidding.
Big Accomplishments in Space AQ
-Biggest accomplishment will be SDA. Their success will put pressure on SSC and Space RCO for them to go smaller. They have a brilliant model and they’ve shown the ability.
[End]
Keynote: Derek Tournear, Director of Space Development Agency
Overall Summary:
-Focuses on enhancing targeting and tracking capabilities for BLoS and hypersonic threats using Link16.
-Details SDA’s approach to quick space acquisitions and the deployment of tranches for space capabilities.
-Underlines the significance of transport, tracking, and custody layers for comprehensive space warfare support and data management.
Highlighted his organization’s two driving goals, BLoS targeting for time-sensitive ground and maritime targets, and hypersonic and advanced missile threat warning and tracking. Discussed how SDA is “exploiting what we have” in existing deployed Link16 capability and that the efforts aim to contribute to aPNT capability. Detailed the sizes of planned Tranches and distinguished their niche purposes. Highlighted the use of SAE’a formula for going fast in space acquisitions. During Q&A, discussed the focus on delivering the C2 using Iridium, work with MDA and INDOPACOM, where they focus on preventing common mode failures, how the USSF acquisition organizations work together, and the impacts of the delay to full-year funding of FY24 appropriations.
Semper Citius – wars lost from inability to act quickly.
Two goals
BLOS targeting for time-sensitive ground and maritime targets
Hypersonic and advanced missile threat warning and tracking
Proliferated Space Architecture
Transport layer key, backbone for PWSA and JADC2. Systems then tie using tactical data links like Link16.
Tracking layer many many satellites – fusing data to send to transport layer then send to warfighter.
Custody layer ISR, detect, custody, data to transport then send to warfighter.
APNT another key element for resiliency, anti-spoofing.
BMC2 processor – computer onboard satellites, fusing data, data management for mesh network to manage traffic.
Hitting milestones, getting capability on the timelines we promised. Maintaining timelines critical.
Tranche 0 – one left on ground for testbed. Discussion of number on orbit.
Tranche 1 – initial warfighting capability.
Tranche 2 – currently in acq for this. Starting to build out FOC.
Tranche 3 – still in development – don’t know what it is yet. We will adjust after warfighter council this fall. Extending upon existing capabilities, beauty of spiral approach.
Tranche 4 – will continue….
Discussed roadmap, “calculus” for numbers of satellites.
York and Lockheed satellites doing fine, we are about to demonstrate Link16 connectivity in space. Link16 developed in Cold War for LoS connectivity for 200-300 nautical miles. Has worked well, allies use Link16, has been modernized. Downside in modern conflict is it won’t be 300-nm. Coordination will need to extend over 1,000-nm, and with allies/Joint. We can’t retool all our radios with a new system, so we are looking at how to do over space distances. Tool radios on satellites to make the satellite radios look like they’re the terrestrial ones. Tested with FVEYS.
Tranche 2, all in acq. Alpha birds are 100 carbon copies of York/NG satellites. Beta are extensions are tactical satcom demo, NG, ??, Rocketlab. Gamma is doing Warlock, classified effort – have done some industry engagement, pending FY24 appropriation.
Tranche 0 through Tranche 2, graphic of how the coverage is increasing.
Tracking takeaway is that it’s part of a larger architecture teamed with SSC, others. SSC building out MEO, which works in conjunction with SDA’s LEO systems. Discussion on how they will work together to reduce exploitable holes.
Strategies for going fast
Build smaller systems
Use existing tech, designs to minimize NRE
Drive contract scope/length to 2-3 years from start to launch
Use fixed-price contracts
This all equals delivery of capability faster
Q: C2 – what system(s) is SDA using for ground management and integration? Existing USSF system “decrepit;” to which degree will SDA’s system be used?
A: SAE says ground should be ready before you launch. We aren’t relying upon legacy ground for any of our systems. All were designed for specific missions, not optimized for pLEO, optimization wouldn’t have worked well. New ground infrastructure, commercially available and commercial proliferated ops model is what we looked at. GD is our prime, Iridium as their big sub, they know how to do it.
Q: How does Tranche 0 warfighter immersion? How are they making use, leading to refining requirements?
A: Tracking data giving us first light data down, feeding into algorithms. Main goal of 0 Tracking is validating MDA’s signal clutter extraction. MDA looking at data to see if can pull signals out of clutter. How will regular warfighter in field use systems? We are thinking Link16. Involved and participating with INDOPACOM, next exercise is Valiant Shield. We have capability to communicate with their unmodified radios, so communicating with those, working with network managers to work relay. Getting them used to using globally Link16.
Q: How does the potential of a nuclear weapon increase hardening, etc.?
A: Proliferation gets us out of point-to-point risk. Common mode failure of cyber and supply-chain interdiction are our biggest common mode failure risks. Can’t proliferate your way out of that. High-altitude nuclear detonation is targeting everything within a cone, and different models will predict different outcomes after initial event. “Black Swan” events, won’t change our architecture to address, but there would be a major worldwide attack, not just an attack on us. We are also looking at orbit altitude.
Q: Are roles of acquisition organizations clearly defined, sharing defined? Tension?
A: Just like in industry, competimates. If you can have competition, SSC, SDA, Space RCO, other, can have competing ideas, SAE makes decision to give to best player. USSF and NRO have a long history of working together, things morph over time, probably well understood at this point.
Q: How is the CR impacting SDA?
A: Incredibly frustrating and worrisome. Fall of 2019 schedule intact, and this is the first time our timeline has been under threat. If CR goes past March and into April, significant impact. Will have to work with vendors because can’t continue paying them. Two acquisitions impacted: Foo Fighter new demonstration for advanced fire control; T2Gamma solicitation delayed until FY24 appropriation. Milestone payments for other acquisitions in T1 and other.
Date
- Feb 27 2024
- Expired!
Time
- All Day
Local Time
- Timezone: America/Phoenix
- Date: Feb 27 2024
- Time: All Day