The US Space Force

TomS said:
Because whoever slapped that trash together has no idea what the Space Force would do, assuming it ever gets created. None of those logos stand any chance of becoming a real military service ensignia.
Click to expand...

How about this logo in a photo posted by a very good friend of the administration:

"Roger Stone, longtime ally of President Donald Trump, posted a photoshopped picture on Instagram Tuesday showing himself, the president, and other Trumpworld defenders in spacesuits. But the picture shows the mock Space Force team wearing shocking insignias.

Swastikas.

They’re shown wearing Swastikas.

Judging by the imagery and the “in space no one can hear you lie” caption, the picture was most likely made by a Trump critic — but Stone decided to latch onto it at first in order to jab at the “liberal scumbags.”

Stone has deleted the picture, but screengrabs live forever:"

The picture may be unsettling to some on this forum, so I will instead provide this link to it and the above quote: https://www.mediaite.com/online/roger-stone-deletes-photo-of-himself-and-trump-in-space-force-suits-with-swastika-patches/
 
I think the space force is not just conquering space.

Superiority? in space could affect air-to-air combat. Anyway, is massive resources in space major target?
 
https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/09/creating-space-force-will-cost-13b-over-5-years-air-force-secretary/151312/

Something tells me that the USSF is headed for a crash and burn.

On a side note, shouldn't this topic be moved over to Space Projects or Aerospace?
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/09/creating-space-force-will-cost-13b-over-5-years-air-force-secretary/151312/

Something tells me that the USSF is headed for a crash and burn.

On a side note, shouldn't this topic be moved over to Space Projects or Aerospace?
Click to expand...

It's not about hardware, so definitely not Space Projects. You could argue for Aerospace, but frankly this is politically contentious enough that it's probably better off in The Bar.
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/09/creating-space-force-will-cost-13b-over-5-years-air-force-secretary/151312/

Something tells me that the USSF is headed for a crash and burn.
Click to expand...

Not to go all political but, if democrats take control, it's a virtual certainty if only because it was started under the Trump administration. They'd murder babies to jam a stick in his eye. ;) If he gets two terms, maybe it has enough momentum to keep it alive. It's certainly needed.
 
Could pay for a chunk of it by closing the "indefinite detention" camps, cancelling The Wall we weren't gonna pay for, and by not paying himself taxpayer money to use his own properties 1 out of every 3 days in office. Which does he want more?
 
Moose said:
Could pay for a chunk of it by closing the "indefinite detention" camps, cancelling The Wall we weren't gonna pay for, and by not paying himself taxpayer money to use his own properties 1 out of every 3 days in office. Which does he want more?
Click to expand...

"Indefinite detention camps"? Gitmo? If we weren't going to pay for the wall then cancelling it doesn't save any money. Evidence he's "paying himself taxpayer money"? Or is he paying for services that are required anyway?
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Could pay for a chunk of it by closing the "indefinite detention" camps, cancelling The Wall we weren't gonna pay for, and by not paying himself taxpayer money to use his own properties 1 out of every 3 days in office. Which does he want more?
Click to expand...

"Indefinite detention camps"? Gitmo? If we weren't going to pay for the wall then cancelling it doesn't save any money. Evidence he's "paying himself taxpayer money"? Or is he paying for services that are required anyway?
Click to expand...

This digression into partisan politics (clearly instigated by sferrin to air his own hobby-horse bull-shit political prejudices) is a terrible idea.
Stick to the topic instead?
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Could pay for a chunk of it by closing the "indefinite detention" camps, cancelling The Wall we weren't gonna pay for, and by not paying himself taxpayer money to use his own properties 1 out of every 3 days in office. Which does he want more?
Click to expand...

"Indefinite detention camps"? Gitmo? If we weren't going to pay for the wall then cancelling it doesn't save any money. Evidence he's "paying himself taxpayer money"? Or is he paying for services that are required anyway?
Click to expand...

This digression into partisan politics (clearly instigated by sferrin to air his own hobby-horse bull-shit political prejudices) is a terrible idea.
Stick to the topic instead?
Click to expand...

edit: Fair enough. Though I would argue, that at this early stage, politics is the only thing keeping the notion of a Space Force alive. Without political support it dies.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/digital-show-daily/2018/09/18/how-the-air-force-plans-to-use-space-to-project-power-in-the-21st-century-2/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFN&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.— As the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy have made clear, space is set to become a crucial war fighting domain, as nearly every operation the military conducts relies on space assets.

So when the leaders of the Air Force’s Global Strike Command, Space Command, commander in Europe and Africa and special operations head all shared a stage at the Air Force Associations annual conference to discuss operations, its no surprise they chose to focus on how the service plans to leverage space assets to project power in the 21st century.

One reason space is so important, not just to the Air Force, but all military services, is that space assets enable multidomain operations that are becoming the norm in the modern warfare. Citing the Air Force’s successful strikes against Assad-regime chemical weapons manufacturing sites in Syria in April, Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa, explained the mission was successful because “we had well-vetted and thorough multidomain operations.”
Click to expand...
 
MITCHELL INSTITUTE Policy Papers

Organizing Spacepower: Conditions for Creating a US Space Force

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_2ff8dfe95e694f80b4139d05650843ed.pdf
 
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/04/report-trump-may-fire-air-force-secretary-wilson-over-space-force/
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/why-we-need-a-space-force-csiss-todd-harrison/

The Trump administration’s push to create a new military department, known as the Space Force, has generated a fair amount of skepticism and more than a few nerdy jokes. Despite being easy fodder for late-night comedians, the way in which the U.S. military and Intelligence Community are organized for space is a serious national security issue because the threats posed to U.S. space systems by other nations are real and growing. A Space Force is needed to consolidate authority and responsibility for national security space in a single chain of command; to build a robust cadre of space professionals who can develop space-centric strategy and doctrine; and to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in the other services that have short-changed space programs for decades.
Click to expand...

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Harrison_Endgame_D360_.pdf
 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24953/star-wars-dod-execs-and-the-usaf-are-already-battling-over-a-non-existent-space-force-budget
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24953/star-wars-dod-execs-and-the-usaf-are-already-battling-over-a-non-existent-space-force-budget
Click to expand...

"Star Wars" ::) Lemme guess, Tyler Rogoway?
 
Just in case it wasn't that clear:
It's "The Bar" here, but bar fights are only a regular feature of Western Saloons.
In a bar, there's a bouncer !

The topic is "The US Space Force", so, please back to this topic !
Next step would be to turn it into a "News Only !" thread. :mad:
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/air-force-sec-says-us-may-demo-new-space-weapon-to-deter/?fbclid=IwAR3qvE8irfgLeXmugQhlclmxHa_l6DVvx6p0RsW5DVt_HMgCTRZrSzObdyU

SPACE SYMPOSIUM: We got a glimpse into the Pentagon’s new space strategy when Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said that the US may “demonstrate some capabilities so our adversaries understand that they will not be able to deny us the use of space without consequences.”

Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein spoke yesterday with reporters here.

This is the first time I can recall a senior defense official openly discussing using a new weapon in space (whether it’s aimed at something in space or is in space is impossible to determine from her comment) to send a clear message of deterrence.

In what appeared to be unscripted comments in response to a question — but probably weren’t — Wilson started off saying: “There are certain things we don’t discuss publicly about our capabilities.” Then came the stinger: “There may come a point where we demonstrate some capabilities so our adversaries understand that they will not be able to deny us the use of space without consequences. That capability needs to be one that’s understood by your adversary. They need to know there are certain things we can do, at least at some broad level.”
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting laser? HTK? Ground launched? Air launched?
 
If SM-3 Block I can do a direct accent intercept against a satellite in LEO how high could GBI reach? (Or even SM-3 Block II.) Food for thought.
 
Another DARPA project. It would be encouraging if the Air Force was doing this if they want to retain DOD mission ownership over space. Meanwhile, I wonder how Boeing is doing with the XS-1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tra0aR0zppA
 
sferrin said:
If SM-3 Block I can do a direct accent intercept against a satellite in LEO how high could GBI reach? (Or even SM-3 Block II.) Food for thought.
Click to expand...
The answer for SM-3 Blk II is 1,500km.

web.archive.org

Why Russia Keeps Moving The Football On European Missile Defense: Politics

America wants to use policy — talks on missile defense cooperation — to make Russia feel better about the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). But the Russians, who say they think EPAA threatens their ICBMs and thus creates all sorts of arms control problems. say technology — not policy —...
web.archive.org web.archive.org

1564151344519.png
 
Pentagon delays work on space-based neutral particle beam 'indefinitely'
The Defense Department is delaying work on a space-based neutral particle beam "indefinitely," just months after revealing its plans to pursue the project, as DOD's research chief says the technology is not mature enough
————————————————————-
Am I missing something the technology is not mature enough says the “research chief”?

Isn’t that what a research chief should be doing maturing the technology?

Sorry partial story rest behind a paywall so maybe they clarify??
 
They'll mature it by doing nothing. That's how it worked for the last 30 years. That's how we got advanced 3-stream turbine engines you know.
 
Could be the funding for future work is being diverted for a ground based project.
 
sferrin said:
They'll mature it by doing nothing. That's how it worked for the last 30 years. That's how we got advanced 3-stream turbine engines you know.
Click to expand...
I always think “oh it works so well they want to protect it they made it a black project”

I’m probably being naive
 
RanulfC said:
Uhm it's a high tech project with assumed a bit of budget... why does it have a flat tire? Maintenance people, it's a a thing :)

Randy
Click to expand...


I assume you mean the neutral particle beam program was cancelled due to funding needed for maintenance elsewhere? If so, why would the DOD say the project was cancelled due to technical immaturity? Is maintenance a thing which must not be mentioned?
 
fredymac said:
RanulfC said:
Uhm it's a high tech project with assumed a bit of budget... why does it have a flat tire? Maintenance people, it's a a thing :)

Randy
Click to expand...


I assume you mean the neutral particle beam program was cancelled due to funding needed for maintenance elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I assume he meant the ACTUAL FLAT TIRE you can see in the photo.

Sometimes a flat tire is just a flat tire.
 
Orionblamblam said:
fredymac said:
RanulfC said:
Uhm it's a high tech project with assumed a bit of budget... why does it have a flat tire? Maintenance people, it's a a thing :)

Randy
Click to expand...


I assume you mean the neutral particle beam program was cancelled due to funding needed for maintenance elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I assume he meant the ACTUAL FLAT TIRE you can see in the photo.

Sometimes a flat tire is just a flat tire.
Click to expand...

What the last guy said :)

It's happened a few officially ''serious" photos I've been involved with, (after the picture is published we noted for example the red "armed" indicator on the nose fuze of the bomb we used as a backdrop during a re-enlistment ceremony... the fact "we" all knew it was a dummy bomb didn't not help the Commanders mood a bit :) ) so I thought I'd point it out.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Orionblamblam said:
fredymac said:
RanulfC said:
Uhm it's a high tech project with assumed a bit of budget... why does it have a flat tire? Maintenance people, it's a a thing :)

Randy
Click to expand...


I assume you mean the neutral particle beam program was cancelled due to funding needed for maintenance elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I assume he meant the ACTUAL FLAT TIRE you can see in the photo.

Sometimes a flat tire is just a flat tire.
Click to expand...

What the last guy said :)

It's happened a few officially ''serious" photos I've been involved with, (after the picture is published we noted for example the red "armed" indicator on the nose fuze of the bomb we used as a backdrop during a re-enlistment ceremony... the fact "we" all knew it was a dummy bomb didn't not help the Commanders mood a bit :) ) so I thought I'd point it out.

Randy
Click to expand...


I stand corrected.
 
sferrin said:
VTOLicious said:
sferrin said:
No doubt the horse cavalry in the US Army thought the same, "Air Force....seriously?"
Click to expand...

I think you kinda missing my point...

"...As the Cold War began, fear of Outer Space being used for military purposes spread through the international community. This led to the creation of multiple organizations with the intent of governing how outer space can be used in order to assure it does not become the next frontier for conflict..."
Click to expand...

If you believe space won't become weaponized I have a bridge for sale. They may not station nukes in orbit (probably a dumb idea anyway from a reaction standpoint) but I won't be at all surprised to see defensive weapons deployed there.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like the nuclear proliferation problem though. If you start launching 'defensive' weapon systems, the other launch capable states will start putting up their own 'defensive' systems as well to protect their own assets and to counter yours. If someone slips up and mistakenly destroys someone else's sat, depending on the nature of and how far the exchange goes, you'll wind up with one or more new clouds of debris adding themselves to the already non-trivial junk problem. If a cascade of impacts gets triggered it would turn LEO/MEO into a disaster zone (possibly for decades) with major economic impacts, not just for the two guys shooting at each other but for everyone else as well.

Of course, once 'defensive' systems are in orbit, if you lose a sat, was it enemy action or was it an accidental junk hit? Can you ever know? Say you have a leader that demands a counter-strike for what was an accident? Surely the safest play is to agree to not weaponize?
 
jeffb said:
Of course, once 'defensive' systems are in orbit, if you lose a sat, was it enemy action or was it an accidental junk hit? Can you ever know? Say you have a leader that demands a counter-strike for what was an accident? Surely the safest play is to agree to not weaponize?
Click to expand...

The same logic applies *everywhere.* So unless you also suggest disarming the land, sea and air, just in case an accident sets off a mistaken response, this is not a necessary or sufficient reason to cede the high ground of space to your opponents who *are* willing to accept the small risk of accidents.
 
jeffb said:
It's a bit like the nuclear proliferation problem though. If you start launching 'defensive' weapon systems, the other launch capable states will start putting up their own 'defensive' systems as well to protect their own assets and to counter yours. If someone slips up and mistakenly destroys someone else's sat, depending on the nature of and how far the exchange goes, you'll wind up with one or more new clouds of debris adding themselves to the already non-trivial junk problem. If a cascade of impacts gets triggered it would turn LEO/MEO into a disaster zone (possibly for decades) with major economic impacts, not just for the two guys shooting at each other but for everyone else as well.

Of course, once 'defensive' systems are in orbit, if you lose a sat, was it enemy action or was it an accidental junk hit? Can you ever know? Say you have a leader that demands a counter-strike for what was an accident? Surely the safest play is to agree to not weaponize?
Click to expand...

Agreements never last long and frankly there is no way of knowing whether space has already been weaponised right now.
 
Sorry, the 'logic' there is predicated on the risk that engaging in even a limited exchange via 'defensive' systems might lead to an increase in orbital debris sufficient to trigger a Kessler syndrome cascade, I should have been clearer.

Such a 'cascade' would have major, if not devastating, impacts on a large number of civilian and military systems in LEO, even to the point of making LEO unusable. If the risk of using one of these defensive system carries with it a non-zero probability of losing the defended asset along with everything else in the same and neighboring orbital bands anyway, it becomes a bit of a stretch to think of a situation where you'd be brave enough to use it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom