CSBA "Third Offset" paper

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am more than a bit sceptical about how well this will work out...
 
 
“And let’s clear up the way we work with Space Force and SPACECOM. We have a great relationship, as Gen. (Jay) Raymond (of the Space Force) talked and all the other speakers have mentioned,” Scolese said. He noted that he, Raymond, and NASA head Bill Nelson “flew here together on the same plane and had a great conversation about what the future should look like.”

On top of that, the trio spent Sunday night at a reception with Gen. James Dickinson, commander of Space Command, which was, Scolese said, “a fine reception.”

During a press briefing later in the day, Dickinson was asked about the new agreement. He said he had not heard Scolese’s remarks, noting accurately that reporters were “probably not going to be satisfied with this answer.”
 
Last edited:

Moran made clear he doesn’t think the US is hopelessly behind, but catching up will require a different acquisition model than the one that propelled America to putting the first humans on another celestial body.

Our current acquisition model, in which the government dictates the term of a product or a mission, does not work. Government labs are decades behind those of the private sector,” he said. “So why is Washington DC still trying to direct industry to comply with government procedures? The power of the private industry, the power of private industry can only be fully realized. If government does not stand in its way.”
 

The Air Force was recently put under notice that lawmakers are becoming impatient on the lack of real movement on the issue — which was one of the key rationales for the creation of Space Force in the first place. The House Appropriations Committee sent a shot across the bow last month in its fiscal 2022 budget bill, excoriating the service for what is sees as simply moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

In particular, the HAC ripped the reorganization of the Space Force’s acquisition office into Space Systems Command, writing that the plan consists “primarily of renaming the Space and Missile Systems Center and incorporating existing space launch units. The plan does not resolve the fundamental issues of overlap and duplication in roles, responsibilities, and authorities among the various other space acquisition units.”

The lawmakers also charged that Space Force lacks a coherent, evidenced-based plan for the future space architecture — i.e. the overarching configuration of the various US military space systems fielded for various missions, from communications to missile warning to positioning, navigation and timing.
 
In a way it's the political culture that leads to defeat. When crime continues in the US and UK year after year do we suspend police operations? Yet when it comes to military operations, that is exactly how politics works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom