Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Space Force

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lakechampainer
    replied
    From the Air University - a 2009 update of a 1993 paper: AU-18 Space Primer. Has several interesting sections, including sections on orbital mechanics (pages 89 to 112) and on theories of Space Power, and how those compare and contrast with those of air power and naval power(pages 29 to 40).

    https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Por...ooks/AU-18.PDF

    excerpt 1 (page 89)

    Knowledge of orbital motion is essential for a full understanding of space operations. Motion through space can be visualized using the laws described by Johannes Kepler and understood using the laws described by Sir Isaac Newton. Thus, the objectives of this chapter are to provide a conceptual understanding of orbital motion and discuss common terms describing that motion. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first part focuses on the important information regarding satellite orbit types to provide an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the spaceborne assets supporting the war fighter. The second part covers a brief history of orbital mechanics, providing a detailed description of the Keplerian and Newtonian laws. The third section discusses the application of those laws to determining orbit motion, orbit geometry, and orbital elements. This section has many facts, figures, and equations that may seem overwhelming at times. However, this information is essential to understanding the fundamental concepts of orbital mechanics and provides the necessary foundation to enable war fighters to better appreciate the challenges of operating in the space domain. Orbit Types An orbit for a satellite is chosen based on the mission of that particular satellite. For instance, the lower the altitude of a satellite, the better the resolution an onboard camera can have and the shorter the time it takes to travel around the earth (period). On the other hand, the farther out a satellite is, the more of the earth’s surface it can observe at one time. Also, the farther the orbit is tilted away from the equator, the more of the earth’s surface a satellite will observe over the course of an orbit. These parameters (which will be described in more detail later in the chapter) drive the four basic orbit types: low Earth orbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), and highly elliptical orbit (HEO). Table 6-1 lists the various orbit types and the missions associated with each one.

    ====================================
    excerpt 2 - page 100

    When Newton’s second law is combined with his gravitational law, the solutions are all conic sections, which are shapes that can be made by slicing off sections of a cone at various angles. The conic section an object will follow depends on its kinetic and potential energy as described above. Conic sections consist of four types: circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic. If an object lacks the velocity (insufficient kinetic energy, KE < PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then it will follow a closed-path orbit in the form of a circle or ellipse. However, if the object has enough velocity (kinetic energy equal in magnitude to the gravitational potential energy in the absence of friction resistance, KE = PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then the object will follow an open path in the shape of a parabolic orbit. Finally, if the object has excess velocity (more than sufficient kinetic energy, KE > PE) to overcome the earth’s gravitational attraction, then the object will follow an open path in the shape of a hyperbolic orbit.33 Figure 6-13 shows a three-dimensional representation of the various possible conic sections (orbit geometries). Figure 6-14 shows a two-dimensional representation of the conic section geometry. The parameters that describe the size and shape of the conic are its semimajor axis (a) and eccentricity (e). The semimajor axis, a measure of the orbit’s size, is half the distance between perigee and apogee; it is also the average distance from the attracting body’s center. Eccentricity, which describes the orbit’s shape, is the ratio of the linear eccentricity (c) to the semimajor axis. The linear eccentricity is half the distance between the two foci. These parameters apply to all trajectories. A circular orbit is a special case of the elliptical orbit where the foci coincide (c = 0). Figure 6-15 depicts a satellite orbit with additional parameters whose conic section is an ellipse.
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 Oct 20, 14:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    From media.defense.gov - Aerospace Power in the Twenty-First Century - A Basic Primer. From 2001. By Clayton K. S. Chun.


    The Last tenth or so of the paper discusses "Space Power". Pretty much the official AF view of that time, written by a retired AF officer who among other things taught at the Air Force Academy.


    https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/3...WER_PRIMER.PDF
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 Oct 20, 18:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    From fas.org - from the publication date August 2, 2004 - Counterspace Operations - United States Air Force

    https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2_2-1.pdf

    from page 31 - The Five Ds of Offensive Counterspace Operations

    Offensive counterspace operations preclude an adversary from exploiting space to their advantage. OCS operations may target an adversary’s space capability (space system, forces, information links, or third party space capability), using a variety of permanent and/or reversible means. The “Five D’s”—deception, disruption, denial, degradation, and destruction— are the possible desired effects when targeting an adversary’s space capability. Deception employs manipulation, distortion, or falsification of information to induce adversaries to react in a manner contrary to their interests. Disruption is the temporary impairment of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce effects, usually without physical damage. Denial is the temporary elimination of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce effects, usually without physical damage. Degradation is the permanent impairment of some or all of a space system’s capability to produce results, usually with physical damage. Destruction is the permanent elimination of all of a space system’s capabilities to produce effects, usually with physical damage.
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 13 Oct 20, 19:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post

    Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

    This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.
    Bad idea. The USAF will only do CAS and drones when dragged there, kicking and screaming. A secretary and a chief of staff both lost their job said over the USAF's institutional inability to fight the current wars. The USAF's ideal CAS aircraft is a B52- it takes off from CONUS and can service a lot of targets. Can you imagine if the Army had to work through the theater-level ATO process to do an air assault?

    Far better to swap Patriot/THAAD for the A10, and leave the USAF to operate forward of the FSCL, where they prefer to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Link to an article I found interesting, from Heritage.org: The Air Domain and the Challenges of Modern Air Warfare - by Harry Foster

    https://www.heritage.org/sites/defau...%20Warfare.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    From the US Naval War College: A Theory of Naval Airpower

    Interesting article from 2014 which discusses among other things that the US Navy doesn't have an operational view of air power (they have tactical, and strategic views, but not the in-between operational)

    Also a discussion of the different types of naval aviation.

    https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cg...ext=nwc-review

    excerpt below

    An operational-level theory of naval airpower must be derived from practice—how it has been used and why it has been successful. Naval aviation is a subordinate element of American sea power and, as such, has established no separate theoretical basis for either its own justification or employment. While this theory vacuum has kept it from advancing its command-and-control doctrine the way the Air Force has, it has produced a flexibly minded organization that is very good at adapting to novel operational circumstances. In contrast to airpower theory as interpreted by the Air Force, naval aviation has never linked itself to an a priori mechanism for strategic victory or regarded itself as an independent strategic weapon. Nonetheless, as the Navy transitions to the operational-level Joint Force Maritime Component Commander / Maritime Operations Center (JFMCC/MOC) framework for its command and control (C2), a theory is needed both to guide the development of C2 doctrine and to make the case for maintaining operational control of naval aviation within Navy lifelines. Naval aviation, for the purpose of theory and doctrine, can be divided into the following categories: • Carrier air wings: the airframes, both fixed- and rotary-wing, manned and unmanned, that operate from the deck of an aircraft carrier • Land-based naval aviation: maritime patrol planes and electronic-warfare aircraft • Organic surface-combatant aircraft: manned and unmanned helicopters and small, fixed-wing unmanned aircraft • Organic Marine aviation: fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft attached to embarked Marine units. These categories omit much—aircraft for training, logistics, test and evaluation, etc. Such aviation elements can be thought of as infrastructural support and are not directly parts of theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post

    Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

    This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.
    I don't think so. Look at the disaster that caused with the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The US Army already can't have fixed wing aircraft of virtually any sort and nothing armed. If anything, the USAF is becoming more of an anachronism than a separate service.
    You mention USN maritime patrol planes. Moving these to a separate service would lead to compatibility issues. The reason the USMC has their own air force is it's dedicated mostly to CAS and air superiority over the beachhead. It's the sort of air force the US Army need integral to their operations.

    Of course, that makes the USAF nearly meaningless, which they really were right from the start.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The all US long-range ballistic missile units should be transferred as well. That would make the remaining USAF all but superfluous and as a service should be returned to control of the Army. I doubt the USN would miss having the SSBN's under their control, and the USAF units wouldn't be afterthoughts when it comes to career and promotion like they are now.
    Another option would be take (some) aviation units away from the army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We might be better off with the prime aviation service controlling more US military aviation. Off the top of the head I can think of army aviation, of all types. Also land-based Naval aircraft (such as Maritime patrol planes) and Marine Corps aircraft of all types.

    This would also make better use of the Air Force Academy.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    One thing the "look out" function of a Space Force might deal with ....

    Not large enough for EOTWAWKI, nor Tunguska level destruction, but could still do some damage had it come closer enough to strike us.

    RV-size asteroid to get closer to Earth than the moon
    ...
    An asteroid will get awfully close to Earth this Thursday (Sept. 24), when it whizzes by our planet closer than the moon orbits.

    The asteroid — known as 2020 SW — isn't expected to collide with Earth, according to the Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. But it will get close, passing about 16,700 miles (27,000 kilometers) away from Earth, according to the Virtual Telescope Project.

    To put this in perspective, the moon hangs out at an average of 238,900 miles (384,000 km) from us, or about 30 Earths away. This asteroid will pass at a distance of about 2.1 Earths. This means that asteroid 2020 SW will pass even closer than TV and weather satellites, which orbit at about 22,300 miles (35,888 km) away from Earth, according to EarthSky.
    ....
    https://www.livescience.com/asteroid...than-moon.html

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Yes, the new Space Force is definitely in the news these days.

    The American people have been rocked by revelations that Galactus, god of oblivion, devourer of worlds, was detected today approaching our galaxy at a speed that can only be described as ludicrous. . . . .

    “I wanted to always play it down,” a smiling [Pres Donald] Trump told Fox and Friends. “But really, no President before me has better prepared the country to repel this big guy… Some folks call him Galactus, the hunger that does not cease, but I call him the big guy. I don’t want to scare people and create a panic.”

    The President cited the creation of Space Force and recently a UFO task force as further evidence of his preparation, which would cement his place as “the best president the country will have ever had.” Military leaders mumbled agreement while looking faintly embarrassed. . . . .

    In a campaign speech, former Vice President and avatar-in-training Joe Biden pledged to focus on ways of nullifying the existential threat, as well as promising fewer fires, floods, rockslides and tornado[e]s and a $10,000 world-devoured tax credit to families earning less than $175,000 per year.

    He also criticized the President’s inaction regarding Galactus the World Eater, and specifically questioned his recent decision to replace Dr. Reed Richards with Dr. Victor von Doom as UFO task force director.

    Critics complained that most of Biden’s speech was plagiarized from an Isaac Asimov novel. . . . .

    "Trump downplays impending arrival of Galactus, Devourer of Worlds," by Perpetual Captain, Duffel Blog, 23 Sep 2020

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
    More space news courtesy of our old friends at Strategy Page.

    https://strategypage.com/htmw/htspac.../20200921.aspx
    Now that's an interesting source and thanks for presenting. As an old subscriber to Strategy and Tactics, along with SPI games, I kick myself for not knowing about this site for all these years. Some familiar names from the past decades of military history and wargaming.

    Strategy Page
    The News as History
    (HOME): https://strategypage.com/strategytalk/default.aspx

    EXCERPT:
    About Us

    StrategyPage provides quick, easy access to what is going on in military affairs. We cover armed forces world wide, as well as up to date reporting on wars and hotspots wherever they may be. All the news you need, written so that it fits into the time you have for it. The information is organized logically, with categories for different weapons systems (armor, artillery, naval aviation, etc.). We also cover the software of war, often ignored items like leadership, peacetime operations, intelligence, information warfare and the like. And we keep the information online, with archives going back to the early 1980s. A search capability gives you quick access to whatever you need. We put it all in context with military history, maps, country background and useful links.

    Wars and rumors of war. Get it straight, get it fast at StrategyPage.com

    Editor in Chief
    Jim Dunnigan
    Contributing Editor Quick & Dirty Guide to War and On Point columnist
    Austin Bay
    Senior Editor and CIC columnist
    Al Nofi
    Publisher and StrategyWorld.com President
    Dan Masterson
    Staff biographies at the bottom of this page.
    ....
    https://strategypage.com/aboutus/default.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • GCoyote
    replied
    More space news courtesy of our old friends at Strategy Page.

    https://strategypage.com/htmw/htspac.../20200921.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
    Some thoughts not just about the rank structure but about the mission.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/
    Thanks for the interesting find of a thought provoking and insightful article. Select excerpts follow with my comments, in blue 'ink'.
    Title:
    Order from Chaos
    Is Space Force meant to “look down” or “look out”? Titles will tell
    Michael Sinclair
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020
    ....
    Actually, more than titles will tell ...
    ....
    Over the last two weeks, there has been much written about whether America’s fledgling Space Force should use naval ranks to organize its structure and hierarchy, or stick with the traditional rank titles of its parent service, the U.S. Air Force. The issue is subject to draft legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives (technically subtitle C of Title IX of the upcoming annual National Defense Authorization Act). This so-called “Starfleet Amendment” would require the Space Force to use naval ranks. There are principled, reasoned arguments on both sides, and even William Shatner, who for over 40 years has played the fictional Star Trek universe’s most famous and accomplished starship captain has weighed in — unsurprisingly in favor of incorporating a more sea-going rank structure.

    Those who argue in favor of keeping Air Force ranks — I’ll call them traditionalists for simplicity’s sake — generally believe that military space defense and control operations (and increasingly space dominance) has its roots primarily in the culture of the Air Force. Thus, to help protect the clear overlap between air and space missions, keeping the same rank structure makes the most sense to help facilitate close cooperation between the Air Force and the Space Force. There is also apparently some concern that trending too closely to science fiction tropes could undercut the legitimacy of the Space Force, just as it’s getting off the proverbial ground.

    On the other side of the argument, are those — let’s call them optimists — who are more interested in “leaning in” to the distinction between Space Force and Air Force missions and, for that matter, culture. In advocating on behalf of naval ranks, these optimists hope that doing so will help separate the Air Force and Space Force in much the same way that the Marine Corps (which uses a land-based rank structure that ostensibly has the advantage of facilitating operations with its Army counterparts) and Navy, are separate. More substantively, the optimists are also seemingly more likely to take a long view, in that they acknowledge that outer space, as a domain, shares more in common with the maritime than the air, and thus are thinking forward to a future that will no doubt include manned ships to undertake sea-power-like missions, where naval ranks would make more sense than land-based ranks.
    ....
    Some red highlights (click-links) will be found in original article, others are mine for emphasis.
    ....
    Leaving aside for now the relationship between the Space Force and Space Command, what underlies all of the discussion about which rank structure to use is the concern, on both sides, that this decision will help shape the culture, and in some respects, the likely functional prioritization of the service for the immediate years to come. That is of course the more important question, much more so than how we intend to refer to an E-5 or O-3 in the Space Force.
    ....
    There lies the main factor, the ranking and pay grades remain common to all USA military services, despite what "name" any may have.
    ....
    As the start to a solution, it may make sense to simply separate out functional areas using a broad distinction between “looking down” and “looking out.” The “looking down” mission space could include most of what the Air Force had been doing in space for more than the last 50 years — largely the exploitation of the domain to support terrestrial defense operations, be it advanced warning, missilry, ready access to precision navigation and timing information, communications, reconnaissance, imagery, or data collection/signals intelligence. This would also necessarily include the ability to defend against threats to these capabilities.

    Alternatively, “looking out” would capture the near future of space operations, likely starting with the inevitable increase in cislunar traffic between the Earth and the moon, some of which will be manned. As the future space operations — both civilian and military — extend outward, there will of course be a foreseeable need to project military power into the expanse, hortatory languageof the Outer Space Treaty notwithstanding.

    Further, applying this “looking down” versus “looking out” analytical paradigm may also help answer the question we started with regarding which rank structure to use, to which I’d propose: Why not both? Those Space Force members trained in executing “look down” missions could use a terrestrial rank structure because doing so marries nicely with their Air Force counterparts both in terms of mission execution and cultural legacy. And those who will eventually be trained to conduct “looking out” missions can use naval ranks, in recognition that “look down” functionality of the space domain is but one aspect of the broader potential of outer space. Both would be Space Force members, but their honorifics and titles would change based on their mission responsibilities, which could be visually depicted using easily distinguishable uniform patches or devices in addition to the traditional military collar insignia or striping. Indeed, developing uniformsthat employ either collar insignia or sleeve striping/shoulder boards may in fact be an easy way to accomplish this distinction in that the same uniform would simply use differing indicators of rank — collar devices for “look down”-type Space Force members and sleeve striping/shoulder boards for “look out”-type Space Force members.
    ....
    Use of a mission focus division of the two types of rank labeling makes sense to me, for now anyway. Down the road as the future developments play out, it could be revised if such is found essential.
    ....
    Ultimately, while the discussion over which type of rank structure the Space Force should use is interesting and arguably important to help shape the trajectory of the Space Force’s cultural identity, more pressing issues remain, including how the Space Force plans on collaborating with U.S. allies and other departments and agencies in the domain, the development of the necessary express statutory and legal authority to operate across the full spectrum of foreseeable space defense operations, deeper discussion on the interaction between commercial space and military space operations, realistic budgetary needs that will help insulate the Space Force from the specter of future de-prioritization within the Department of Defense, clarity around what role the Space Force will play in planetary defense, and of course furtherdoctrinal development. Thinking about organizing the Space Force using a “look down” and “look out” analytical paradigm may also help better frame these issues for further analysis as well.
    ....
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/
    .........
    A couple of main areas of concern focus to me would be;
    1) The 'United States Space Force' (USSF) might likely be the core/foundation of a more organized international effort and organization along the lines of a space based "NATO" of sorts ....
    2) The matter of "planetary defense" would include more than just a terrestrial focus. While large object impacts may seem rather rare in regards to the last few years of human recorded history, on the geological timeline they are rather frequent and often have major consequences (impact, pun intended). Developing and deploying capabilities for detection, deflection and/or destruction of major impact threats from beyond Earth should be a primary reason for an 'Earth Defense Space Force' and such could also be a major persuasion factor for the establishment and funding of such.

    See this thread for more information and details;

    Impact ~ NEO; Near Earth Objects

    As for the commercial aspects and implications, these two threads are also great for additional information and considerations;






    Leave a comment:


  • GCoyote
    replied
    Some thoughts not just about the rank structure but about the mission.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Geopolitics & Space Force

    ....
    In the first half, geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert spoke about the creation of America's sixth branch of the military, the US Space Force, and why he believes it's the country's last chance to preserve the superpower status it fought two world wars and the Cold War to build. The Trump administration has done a lot to develop the Space Force (which was passed by an act of Congress), though another president might try to undercut the program from within, he cautioned. Weichert sees the 21st century as being all about space power and believes that maintaining and expanding such a force is essential. He suggested that Russia and China have already weaponized space to some degree in the form of co-orbital satellites that can tailgate US satellites and potentially push them out of their orbit.

    A potential war in space could knock out or disrupt cell phone service, he noted. In such a conflict, satellites could be attacked by lasers or missiles, and the subsequent debris field might damage additional orbiting objects. Eventually, he said, "we're going to need to develop a strategy for putting actual Space Force members in orbit to man military space stations," which would make it harder for countries like Russia and China to knock out US satellites. A deterrent to nuclear attacks, he added, would be putting up a viable space-based missile defense system. Weichert reported that China has become very interested in space-based solar power, and may want to use it to provide energy to contentious man-made islands in the South China Sea. Establishing a robust US Space Force, he added, will also be helpful for the burgeoning fields of space mining and tourism.
    ...
    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2020-09-09-show/

    See also;
    THE WEICHERT REPORT

    https://theweichertreport.wordpress.com/

    Space Force must make satellite defense a priority, ensuring protection against Russia and China


    In my July 13, 2020 op-ed for The Washington Times, I warn about the threat a Russian or Chinese Space Pearl Harbor–and advise the new Space Force how to best defend us from that.

    https://theweichertreport.wordpress....sia-and-china/

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X