The US Space Force
- Thread starter VTOLicious
- Start date
Sorry, I was inspired to post a non sequitur. The Space Force will require an infrastructure not yet in existence and operational mission parameters which, right now, appear vague at best. My swipe at the US President was over his management style. He talks a lot, and signs documents but as far as I can tell, doesn't pay close attention. He is a terrible leader overall.
Last edited by a moderator:
When the Air Force was carved off the Army I assume all the doctrinal issues discussed in the articles were addressed and set? The entire reason to segregate space from the Air Force was to force these issues to be addressed in the first place (by people institutionally loyal to an existing organization).
You've already made clear you oppose the existence of an independent US Space Force so of course Trump is a terrible leader. I again get an odd sensation when I read "at the US President". That's an unusual expression if it were coming from an American (even one who hates Trump) and adds to the oddity of the "bimodal" English you use.
I do use bimodal English. I have heavily researched the early post-war period and the issues driving the intelligence and military services. In a declassified report published in May 1946, it was stated that pilotless systems were needed in months. Nothing but survival needed to be addressed. Institutional loyalty meant very little after Winston Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech in March of that year. New programs were started for this or that weapon system or old, wartime programs were brought forward.
Everything had to be protected under high classification, including the use of captured German equipment and personnel. The former OSS, now the CIA, had overall management control since they had that knowledge and access to those personnel. Forward planning was dictated to the US government, not planned by it. Closed-door sessions were held to tell the US government what was going to happen. What needed to happen to ensure national survival and national security. You could say force was used but the national interest had to be controlled and managed and the US government was more of a bystander than anything else. When reconnaissance of the Soviet Union began, whatever aircraft were available were used. Interservice rivalry didn't matter.
I have made no remarks opposing what appears to be a useless concept. And I would ask that you do not assign emotion words to me. I do not hate the US President. I will point out that he is an uncivilized man. That is just obvious.
So the CIA was dictating national policy to the US government which was reduced to bystander status. And in 1946 in a period seeing a gigantic disarmament process where millions of Americans were discharged, planes were scrapped, ships mothballed, and contracts cancelled.
That right there is a great example of bimodal history if at the same time the CIA was using force to dictate a crash program to develop weapons to counter the Soviet Union.
I employed "hate" in terms of a hypothetical American because I wasn't sure you are one. You can claim to employ derogatory terms ("uncivilized") without emotion but you can't be unaware such words naturally carry emotional weight.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Actually, the early years of CIA was a string of almost complete failures. Since the majority of CIA initial personnel were from special operations command during the war, they tried what they knew to do best: train & infiltrate saboteurs and armed agents, recruited from emigrants. Information gathering and analytical work was almost nonexistent - Dulles despised those "theoretical aspects". He was convinced that the war with USSR would starts soon, so he concentrated al CIA efforts and money on training & sending a large army of agents to support the anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe.
The results were... disastrous. Since CIA have absolutely no idea about the operating procedures of KGB, the majority of those agents were quickly captured, and from them KGB obtained a lot of precious information about the operating procedures of CIA. So the subsequent agents were captured even faster. A KGB joke of this time was that Dulles could save a lot of money if he start to send agents directly into prison camps.
Only when the Korean War started, and absolute failures of CIA to predict it became apparent, the situation finally changed, and CIA started to actually do intelligence and analytical work.
So... quite a lot of quite powerful organizations started from the dismal failures)
That picture of the OSS and later CIA missions is incomplete. Yes, agents were sent into a high risk environment. It had to be done. Aerial reconnaissance started in 1945. See: Spyflights and Overflights: US Strategic Aerial Reconnaissance 1945-1960 by Robert Hopkins III. Churchill made his speech in 1946 to warn allies and to put the Russians on notice. The Russians had V-1s and V-2s and the world's first combat jet aircraft, including bombers. See: The V1 and its Soviet Successors by Wilfried Kopenhagen.
England was broke. In the London area, about 23,000 houses were destroyed and 1,104,000 were damaged. America was left to continue to support its wartime ally, especially in terms of defense. If the Russians moved west, a plan was in place to activate part of the German army and the Waffen SS. Yes, demobilization occurred but how many occupation troops had any experience fighting the Russians?
To prepare for all possibilities and to get an advantage, projects were started in the US. The USAAF started Project NEPA in May 1946. Meanwhile, due to secrecy and access to highly classified knowledge, the CIA had to manage all sensitive security programs. The book From Rainbow to Gusto: Stealth and the Design of the Lockheed Blackbird gives a very good overview of CIA supervision. Canada and Australia were large and valuable test and production areas, along with providing surveillance and detection of Russian bombers.
In the report, Guided Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft by H. L. Dryden, W.H. Pickering, H.S. Tsien and G.B. Schubauer, it states on page one: "Our military leaders are fully aware now of the necessity of pushing developments of guided missiles, and almost frantic efforts are being made to compress within a few months developments which ordinarily take years." The report has a publication date of May, 1946.
England was broke. In the London area, about 23,000 houses were destroyed and 1,104,000 were damaged. America was left to continue to support its wartime ally, especially in terms of defense. If the Russians moved west, a plan was in place to activate part of the German army and the Waffen SS. Yes, demobilization occurred but how many occupation troops had any experience fighting the Russians?
To prepare for all possibilities and to get an advantage, projects were started in the US. The USAAF started Project NEPA in May 1946. Meanwhile, due to secrecy and access to highly classified knowledge, the CIA had to manage all sensitive security programs. The book From Rainbow to Gusto: Stealth and the Design of the Lockheed Blackbird gives a very good overview of CIA supervision. Canada and Australia were large and valuable test and production areas, along with providing surveillance and detection of Russian bombers.
In the report, Guided Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft by H. L. Dryden, W.H. Pickering, H.S. Tsien and G.B. Schubauer, it states on page one: "Our military leaders are fully aware now of the necessity of pushing developments of guided missiles, and almost frantic efforts are being made to compress within a few months developments which ordinarily take years." The report has a publication date of May, 1946.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
US Space Force's activities still mysterious despite House hearing
Space Force commander Gen. John Raymond deferred many questions to a private setting.
Overclassification may confuse need for Space Force, Air Force secretary says
Washington DC (UPI) Mar 11, 2020 - Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett said this week that better transparency may be the key to overcoming skepticism about the newly created Space Force. Much of what the Space Force - p
www.spacewar.com
To be clear the "Space Force" is being treated as the USAF equivilent of the how the Marine Corps is treated by the Navy. NOT really a 'seperate' organization as of yet, (and apparently in the mind of many higher ups it never will actually be more than that) but due to the directive publicly treated as one.
Exactly NOT like how the Army Air Corps became the US Air Force I might add. Yes in fact when the AF seperated from the Army most all the 'details' had been already hashed out and settled due to almost two decades of the organizations growing apart and defining operations and procedures. The 'reason' for the 'segregation' is actually based on trying to 'purge' the current Space Command of other services other than the Air Force and the AF has never made any bones about that outcome and are not happy about how it's being touted as its own service. (There was a reason the AF was against the idea of a 'seperate' force in the first place as such operations are not easy or cheap to accomplish)
Randy
The Air Force has historically resisted attempts to raise space operations to a level of prominence equivalent to its existing major commands. Doing so means budget competition for its historic functions. The creation of the US Space Force at a level equivalent to the Marines was forced by Congress and not due to Air Force turf wars against the other services. Left to its own, the Air Force would still treat space as a secondary mission and without the direct Congressional access to advocate for major programs.
WWII allowed the Air Force to expand and prove out its strategic and tactical policies. Air Force budget primacy following WWII grew out of its monopoly over strategic nuclear weapons delivery at the expense of the Army. Without a WWIII, the Air Force was never going to allocate serious resources to space. With the Space Force established even as a subordinate service, it now can create doctrines and policies which institutionally will prioritize reducing cost and difficulty of space access.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
The Pentagon has sent a new legislative proposal on the Space Force to Congress
All of the controversial policy issues have been kicked down the road for a future proposal.
www.defensenews.com
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,589
- Reaction score
- 7,252
CSIS Report space threat assessment 2020
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Air Force To Transfer Missions From 23 Units To Space Force - Breaking Defense
"As the stand-up of the Space Force continues, additional space missions may be identified for transfer," says Air Force spokesman Maj. William Russell.
Well, "not publicly available" and "classified" would limit any discussion. Why would any country tamper with another's satellites? Do the various enemies or potential enemies of the US know what the consequences would be?
Counterspace? Really? Who comes up with this stuff?
Counterspace? Really? Who comes up with this stuff?
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Just came across this:
breakingdefense.com
Satellite Attack Potential Increases: CSIS, SWF - Breaking Defense
"Russia has become one of the world’s greatest perpetrators of electronic counterspace warfare, jamming and spoofing PNT and communications satellite signals in conflict zones, nearby territories, and within its own borders," CSIS says.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,929
- Reaction score
- 11,110
Because other powers interfering with US satellites is unpossible?
Of course it's possible. The question is: Do they, whoever they may be, know what would happen?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 13,194
Probably not. Then again, neither does the US; these are untested waters. But it sure seems that resorting to a lethal (or even non-lethal) kinetic response to the destruction of an unmanned asset may not be acceptable or desirable. Last year, the Iranians shot down an RQ-4, a pretty expensive US national asset, and the US decided to let it go without a response. Sure, the military wanted some sort of reaction, but Trump overrode them on that. THat may be a precedent it's not easy to overturn even with someone else in the hot seat in the future.
It's one thing to identify a threat, or multiple threats, but some advanced response scenario planning likely exists. Since escalation of capabilities is 'inevitable,' response planning should be in place long before any other future incidents. Of course, the average person has no need to know. The Pentagon never calls me for advice 
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,929
- Reaction score
- 11,110
Probably depends what it is and how it's done. Dazzling a billion dollar satellite with a laser is one thing. Destroying it with an ASAT or high powered laser quite another.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Space Force, Lockheed Harden GPS Sats, Ground Stations - Breaking Defense
The Space Force announced Saturday that it had accepted as operational Lockheed Martin's latest anti-jam upgrade to the software powering its its stop-gap operational control system for GPS III.
L3Harris Nabs Estimated $1.7B In Space Force Contracts - Breaking Defense
The contracts support Space Force's Space Surveillance Network (SSN) and the new Protected Tactical SATCOM effort.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,589
- Reaction score
- 7,252
SDA Scales Back Ambitions For Cislunar 'Deterrent' In First RFP - Breaking Defense
SDA's "data transport" satellites will be a key enabler of JADC2, says director Derek Tournear.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Please, it would be Space Protection and Defense Service... Who wouldn't love to be a "SPaDS"?
Randy
NUSNA_Moebius
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 26 May 2012
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 133
Army, Navy, Spacy! Just drop the UN part since they're effectively useless.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Air Force works to ‘mitigate’ Ligado deal’s impact on GPS
Gen. David Goldfein and other Pentagon officials are "very concerned" after the FCC approved Ligado's L-band request on Monday.
www.c4isrnet.com
Space Force surveillance telescope achieves first light in Australia
Recently relocated from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, the Space Surveillance Telescope will expand the U.S. Space Force's electro-optical coverage of objects in geosynchronous orbit.
www.c4isrnet.com
Upcoming report to Congress on space acquisition expected to be ‘groundbreaking’
The U.S. Space Force vice commander says the acquisition plan will be bold.
www.c4isrnet.com
But... but... I'm a Robotech/Macross fan. I like it just fine. To use the technical term: peachy keeno.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,996
- Reaction score
- 3,141
Just found this on our sister forum whatifmodellers.com (and please remember, shooting the messenger is generally considered bad form ):
):
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 9,395
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Brain bleach and flamethrowers, stat! We can talk about making you a test target for thermoplasmic weapons later...
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,589
- Reaction score
- 7,252
Flag presentation at the White House
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 13,194
And apparently we are developing a "super duper missile" that goes "17 times faster than what we have right now."
apnews.com
Space Force unveils flag; Trump touts 'super-duper missile'
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Space Force — the newest branch of the armed services — now has its own flag.
apnews.com
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,929
- Reaction score
- 11,110
And apparently we are developing a "super duper missile" that goes "17 times faster than what we have right now."
Space Force unveils flag; Trump touts 'super-duper missile'
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Space Force — the newest branch of the armed services — now has its own flag.
*GASP* The horror.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Hm, most likely coincidence, of course, but considering that the new super-duper missile was mentioned in context with Space Force - maybe US decided to solve the problem with hypersonic gliders by re-entering them from orbit?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,589
- Reaction score
- 7,252
America Needs Spaceplanes Now, and Space-Based Missile Defenses As Soon as Possible
April of 2020 was a busy month in space for Iran and Russia, the former launching its first military satellite that now flies over America in a south-to-north orbit similar to North Korea’s two
It would be interesting if the missile is a "Thor/Rod From God," but it's unlikely.
Similar threads
-
-
-
Egypt is the first African country to put Camera at the International Space Station- Started by hesham
- Replies: 0
-
-
