the Army Space Journal

Summer 2003 A Professional Journal for Army Space Operators

Vol. 2, No 2 Published by U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

The Army’s 

Future 

in Space

What the Army can do for Space
We want you to know This Journal’s for you

You might wonder what a 100-year-old comedian has in common with the high-tech world of Space and

its future. One word: Tourists. 

In 1988, that is what Bob Hope called these 2,000 soldiers gathered around his makeshift stage on that

cool Monday morning in May not far from the Demilitarized Zone dividing the two Koreas. It was Warrior

Base and the soldiers belonged to the 2nd Infantry Division. At the time, these soldiers were part of the

Army's most forward deployed infantry division. The scene was similar to any of the hundreds shown in

news clips commemorating Bob Hope's life; scenes of the man deadpanning to laughing, stressed-butnow-relaxed American soldiers in life-or-death locations around the world. 

One thing missing in this South Korea setting with Bob Hope and his troops: There were no TV cameras or movie production crews. This production for these special soldiers would never be aired on national television. Clips of these moments would never make any of the specials highlighting Bob Hope's life or

career. Yet right there in the grassy South Korean hillside, Bob Hope created the same connection

between him and his soldiers that is obvious in all those video clips from 1941 and on.

What led to all this was that Bob Hope, Brooke Shields, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine

came to South Korea to film a Pre-Olympic Special as publicity for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. So, in Seoul

the night before this impromptu event near the DMZ, Hope and his entourage performed for a huge crowd

filling the Seoul Olympic Stadium. The show was taped for later production and broadcast. The plan —

after weeks and months of planning — was for that Seoul show to be their only performance. Something

changed in the night, though. After the planned show, Hope asked US Army leadership in Korea if he could

visit troops on the DMZ before heading home. So, at six o'clock the next morning — the Seoul Show ended

around midnight — five blackhawks lifted off from Yongsan and headed north with the Hope gang. 

Let's just say that skirt-clad Brooke Shields and Gloria Estefan were immediate hits walking on the

sandbag-lined walkways as they made their way with Bob Hope, passing the drab Army tents and bunkers.

One or two soldiers were able to figure out how to get a rose to present to each of the ladies in the short

time they had to prepare for the visit. Most just presented the two with the BDU shirts off their backs or

BDU caps off their heads for autographs. But it was the then-85-year-old Bob Hope who climbed the wooden stage and made these soldiers laugh. 

All this came to mind as we prepared the final layout for this latest edtion of the Army Space Journal.

And the word "tourists" kept popping into my thoughts. Unsolicited, I received an email the day after Bob

Hope passed away from MAJ Bob Zaza, a member of one of our Army Space Support Teams deployed.

"News of Bob Hope's death was briefed at the CG's evening BUB (Battle Update Brief) here in Afghanistan.

... He started entertaining US soldiers before the United States's entry into World War II, when there was

no money or prestige in doing such a thing (March Field Performance, May 6, 1941). Just a great man

doing a good thing for American soldiers.”

Even as I write now the only joke I remember him saying in South Korea, it doesn't sound funny. "Age

doesn't mean a thing. It's how you feel about yourself. When I wake up in the morning, I don't feel my

age, I feel like I've got to take a nap around noon." But it was funny. Maybe it was because he bridged

gaps. Later and after my dad passed away, I watched a special on Bob Hope's life. He spoke of talking

to Marines on Camaroon just before the 1st Marines with the Army's 81st Infantry Division in reserve

attacked Pelelieu in April 1944. Teary-eyed, he recalled how most of those Marines who heard his jokes

there later died in the attack. My dad was with those Marines on Camaroon and was one of those Army

soldiers who survived following the Marines in the bloody fight for Pelelieu. 

I will always remember Bob Hope opening his show with the "Warriors" of 2nd Infantry Division by telling

them they were tourists in the area. I will always remember him closing with "Thanks for the Memories."

Mostly, I keep seeing him take that bow at the very end and hearing him say, "Thank you, thank you,

tourists."

Bob Hope represents the enduring human side of what we do in Space and throughout the Army.

— Managing Editor
Summer 

2003 Edition

Contents

Theme — “The Army’s Future in Space”

Approval: The Commanding General, U.S.

Army Space and Missile Defense

Command, has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the

transaction of the public business as

required by law. Use of funds for printing

this publication has been approved by the

Commanding General, January 2001, in

accordance with AR 25-30.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions

expressed in the Army Space Journal are

not necessarily those of the Department of

the Army, or the U.S. Army Space and

Missile Defense Command.

Mission: The Army Space Journal is published quarterly by the U.S. Army Space and

Missile Defense Command. The journal

provides a forum through which Space

Operations Officers can disseminate professional knowledge and furnish information within the U.S. Army. The purpose is

to increase the effectiveness of Space operations through a professional discussion of

events and lessons learned. It is also

intended to inform the Army warfighter on

Army Space initiatives.

Commanding General:

LTG Joseph M. Cosumano Jr.

Deputy Commanding General for

Research, Development & Acquisition:

MG John M. Urias

Deputy Commanding General for

Operations:

BG Robert P. Lennox

SMDC Public Affairs Officer:

William Congo

Managing Editor:

Michael L. Howard

Contributing Editors:

Donald Montoya

MAJ Laura Kenney

Debra Valine

Richard Burks

Marilyn White

Jeff Welch

Brian Hermes

Graphics Editor:

Sharon L. Hartman

Comments, inquiries and manuscripts

should be sent to the Director, Force

Development and Integration Center

(FDIC), ATTN:

Richard Burks

1330 Inverness Dr., Suite 440

Colorado Springs, CO 80910

Telephone: 719-622-2902

Fax: 719-622-2951

richard.burks@arspace.army.mil

Distribution to Functional Area 40 officers

and associated military officers, civilians,

and contractors. Changes to addresses and

requests for this publication should be

made to the FDIC address listed above.

http://armyspace.army.mil/SpaceJournal

2

4

6

12

24

30

22

36

38

8

the Army Space Journal

28

CG Comments Tracking ...

SMDC on track to provide full range of strategic, operational, 

and tactical space capabilities to future force

LTG Joseph M. Cosumano Jr. 

DCG Comments Newcomer’s View

Space-based capabilities critical to warfighter’s 

“seeing, understanding and acting first”

BG Robert P. Lennox

FDIC Comments The View From (Army) Space

The International Competition and Space

Terry Nelson

Questions & Answers Peter B. Teets, 

Undersecretary of the Air Force

Commentary Space Force Application

Between the Idea and the Reality ...

LTC Greg Palka

Theme The Army’s Future in Space

Experiments

Three findings for the Army Space tribe from the Objective Force ...

John Graham

Start Line

Targeting an Adversary’s Space Capabilities Begins with the Terrestial Segment

LTC Dean Taylor and CW4 Daniel Rupp

National Power

The role of Space in economic and military instruments ...

COL Frank Todd

The High Ground

We Have It! We Like It! Can We Keep It? 

Tomás A. Pagán 

Past, Present, Future

The Army’s Role in Space

Bill Furr

Is It Enough?

Army Innovation in Its Use of Space

John Marrs

Transformation

The Warfighter’s Perspective

Col. Kurt Dittmer, USAF

Wild Card

Information Flow from the Modern Battlefield

John W. Davis

The Limits of Space Power

Terrestrial Superiority still Requires Terrestial Power ...

Ed Zehner

Tip of the ‘Sphere’ Army Space Command on Target in

Iraqi Freedom with command-wide effort

Army Space Support Team prepares for post-war Iraq

Ceremony marks activation of 1st Space Brigade (Provisional)

Fireman’s Challenge in Oman pairs up Army Space with Air Force

SATCON volunteers give boost to sister battalion

Soul Survivor Challenge met by SATCON soldiers

COMMAND in BRIEF

40

20

16

26

25

18

32

33

14

42

44
ohn Schaar, the futurist, once wrote, “The future is not a

result of choices among alternative paths offered by the

present, but a place that is created — created first in the

mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not

some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The

paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of

making them, changes both the maker and the destination.” Although this eloquent statement was not specifically written to describe the implications for the Army’s

future role in Space, it does have great relevance for what

the future can be ... one full of great challenge and excitement.

The Present is Prologue to the Future

Before turning to the Army’s future in space, it is

meaningful to briefly recap our recent accomplishments.

During the past three years, the Space and Missile Defense

Command has been instrumental to the Army’s, and the

Nation’s, role in space. SMDC soldiers deployed overseas

and here at home on the front lines of the global war on

terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We activated the

1st Space Brigade (Provisional), the highest-level Army

unit with the word space in its name. The Army Space

Program Office has been transferred to the PEO — Air,

Space and Missile Defense, whose name was expanded to

include space to give the Army a focal point for spacerelated acquisitions. We have also taken great strides in

implementing the president’s vision regarding the Ballistic

Missile Defense System (BMDS) and creating the architecture for effectively integrating theater and national missile

defense, which because of its global nature, is highly

dependent on space for its ultimate success. 

And we are restructuring our headquarters functions to

better execute the command’s new role as the Army

Service Component Command (ASCC) to U.S. Strategic

Command (USSTRATCOM). As such, SMDC has been

presented with significant opportunities in the planning

and coordination of all Army support in the new unified

command’s mission areas of Space operations, global

strike, global information operations, global integrated

missile defense, and global C4ISR. As the Army service

component, we will take the leading role in integrating

space into all Army support to the combatant commanders and throughout the Army, as Space is part of the foundation for all these new global missions.

These accomplishments, only to cite a few, are clear

testimony to the great relevance and contributions the

Army has provided to the space effort. We will not, however, rest on our laurels.

Looking to the Near Future

Looking to the near future, we will very shortly activate

a Ground-Based Mid-Course Missile Defense Brigade and

Battalion (GMD). This unit will assume command and

control of the new GMD segment of the overall BMDS,

which will employ layers of boost, midcourse and terminal

missile defenses to protect the continental United States

from the threat of a limited missile attack. We will also

soon convert our 1st Space Brigade and Battalion to the

first MTOE space units in the Army. And we are restructuring our headquarters functions to better execute the

command’s new role as the Army Service Component

Command to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).

All of this is, of course, in addition to our continuing missions of providing space support and expertise to the

warfighting commanders; and our combat and materiel

development, experimentation, analysis, and research and

development activities that have put so many new technologies and products into the hands of our soldiers.

Working in conjunction with other members of the

national security space community, SMDC is on track to

provide the future force a full range of strategic, operaArmy Space Journal Summer 2003

J

By LTG Joseph M. Cosumano Jr.

CG Column

2

LTG Joseph M. Cosumano

Jr., Commanding General, 

United States Army

Space & Missile Defense

Command

Tracking . . .

SMDC on track to provide full

range of strategic, operational,

and tactical space capabilities

to future force
3

tional, and tactical space capabilities.

Roadmap to the Future

In April 2003, we sharpened our vision of what space

must do for the warfighters of the Future Force, when the

Army Space Policy was approved by the Secretary of the

Army and Chief of Staff, Army. This updated policy

articulates the vital contributions space systems provide to

national security and military operations. It also expresses

the future as “a seamless space-to-soldier continuum of

sensors, networks and information [as] the signature characteristic of well-integrated space with land force and joint

operations.” The Army views space as a vertical extension

of the battlefield and an integral part of the battlespace,

truly the new high ground for military operations.

Integration of space force enhancements contributes

to the ability to achieve the information superiority and

full battlespace awareness necessary for full-spectrum

dominance. Enabling ground commanders to operate on

their own terms, at the time, place, and method of their

choosing, robustly supports the Future Force to see first,

understand first, act first, and finish decisively. These

capabilities have been vividly demonstrated during recent

combat operations, and will be shown to an even greater

degree in the future. Clearly, the Future Force will provide

combatant commanders with systems and capabilities far

beyond those currently in use.

A few Predictions for the Future

While much is unknown about how we will leverage

space in future wars, it is almost certain our reliance on

space will grow considerably. Here are some predictions

on how we will use Space in the future.

· Many current ISR capabilities on manned aircraft

will move to Space, however, not as many as we once

thought because I think many now will migrate instead to

multifunctional UAVs that are cheaper to operate and

maintain, and easier to directly control.

· Every soldier will have access to satellite communications.

· We will know “real-time” where our soldiers are

and Blue Force Tracking via systems like Grenadier Brat

will become the norm.

· Nearly all (if not all) of our missiles and bombs will

be guided by GPS.

· All personnel will be trained in the basics of space.

· Potential adversaries, recognizing our dependence on

space, will develop and deploy systems to attack our space

assets, associated ground elements, and the links between

them. Therefore, we will have to develop appropriate

defenses.

· To ensure we control the new high ground of space

— just as we currently control the airspace and the seas —

we will develop and deploy numerous space-control systems.

Conclusion

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th President of the

United States, said, “Neither a wise man nor a brave man

lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of

the future to run over him.” Significant events overseas

and here in the United States over the past three years have

brought home the insightful meaning of President

Eisenhower’s words. From the days of being the first

service in space, to becoming the first service in missile

defense, and now taking on global responsibilities, SMDC

is carrying on its tradition of providing trained and ready

soldiers and “space age” technological advances. The men

and women, soldiers, civilians and contractors of the

SMDC family continue to lead the way and look forward

to serving as the Army’s premier space activity as we

Secure the High Ground.

Enabling ground commanders to operate on their 

own terms, at the time, place, and method of their 

choosing, robustly supports the Future Force to see 

first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively.

These capabilities have been vividly demonstrated during

recent combat operations, and will be shown to an even

greater degree in the future. 

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal
hen I arrived at Army Space Command two weeks ago

(from the writing of this article), my experience with Spacebased systems was as a user, not a provider. My Air Defense

units depended on early warnings from Joint Tactical

Ground Stations that rely on Space-based systems for their

alerts and communications. My S2 (Intelligence) and S3

(operations and plans) depended on information and intelligence that was gathered through and disseminated by

Space-based systems. I was like the man who when he turns

on his computer, he expects it to work; he doesn’t need nor

necessarily want to know how it’s put together or how it

works. Space? Sure, I wanted what it produced, and I wanted the products when I needed them. In short, I think I was

a typical Army officer. I don’t say this with pride; it’s just a

fact.

After two weeks I have a much better appreciation for

the vast capabilities and support Army Space operators

bring to the fight. Now, I’m in a position where I want and

need to know how the Space-based systems fit together,

enhance each other, create synergies with other systems, and

what each does to enable warfighting. Operation Iraqi

Freedom has made it abundantly clear that for our joint

warfighting doctrine to succeed and for our Army Objective

Force to be effective, we will need to have assured Spacebased capabilities. “Assured” is the operative word. As the

biggest user of Space-based capabilities, the Army’s future,

not just one command’s, but the entire Army’s, is in vigorously pursuing assured Space access at every opportunity. 

BG Rick Geraci, then U.S. Army Space and Missile

Defense Command (SMDC) deputy commanding general

for operations, and COL Glen Collins, Director, SMDC

Force Development and Integration Center, laid out the

Army’s Space operations “high payoff areas” for GEN Eric

K. Shinseki in January 2003 while he was the Army’s Chief

of Staff. SMDC believes these areas are essential to fully

integrating Space operations into ground military operations: (not in order of priority) Space-smart leaders;

ground-based Space control capabilities; integrated timely,

accurate, responsive Space systems linked to tactical and

operational forces; interoperable with United States, foreign,

and commercial Space systems; Space support elements that

are organic to divisions or units of action and units of

employment; global, 24/7/365 communications; jam resistant position, navigation, and timing; and timely, accurate

digital terrain products. While I don’t have all the answers,

I would like to share my initial thoughts on what the Army

and this command need to do for the future of military

Space operations by discussing just two of the “high payoff

areas.”

SPACE CONTROL — Assured Access

As I mentioned above, warfighters need assured access

to Space-based capabilities if we expect our new fighting

doctrine to win by “seeing, understanding, and acting first.”

Our Space systems are reliable, but we can no longer assume

that the United States will maintain its Space superiority.

Commercial companies and foreign governments can offer

many of the same services and access to Space that were at

one time available only to the United States and its military.

At the same time, adversaries cannot help but observe our

dependence on Space and the potential vulnerability it represents if they can somehow attack our Space systems. As

a result, the Army will need to become more actively

involved in Space control to assure us access to our Space

systems and denial of the same to the adversary if needed.

Because Space control can involve air, sea, and ground elements, and because Space is a joint arena, the Army will

need to think about its Space control role as the ground

component and how it integrates with the Air Force and

Naval forces in joint warfighting. 

How do we ensure Army Space equities and requirements are considered and honored? 

Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Space-based capabilities 

critical to warfighter’s 

“seeing, understanding 

and acting first”

W

By BG Robert P. Lennox

DCG Column

4

BG Robert P. Lennox,

Deputy Commanding

General for Operations,

United States Army

Space & Missile Defense

Command

Newcomer’s View
5

Easier said than done, but we start with our basic Army

task — land warfighting dominance. We have it, and we

want to keep it. In theory, as long as we have more and better firepower on the ground than anyone else, we win.

However, “in theory, there is no difference between theory

and practice, but in practice, there is.” In practice, our

warfighting has already evolved to require that we dominate

in Space to dominate on the ground. The Army must hoist

its banner as a user and developer of Space. This is not

new either in practice or in theory. Check our history — the

Army has been involved in the contemporary development

and use of Space since the beginning. In fact, military use

of Space began right here in the U.S. Army. The need to

develop Space-based capabilities for operations unique to

land warfare is obvious, and should not be entrusted to any

component less focused on land warfighting dominance

than on their own kind of dominance. Terrestrial-based

Space control for land warfighting dominance is in the

Army domain, and should be an Army mission. The Army

Space Policy signed this year certainly moves us that direction: “The Army’s functions are expanded to

include...Interdict enemy Space power through operations

on or from land.” Therefore, our starting place for ensuring that Army Space equities and requirements are honored

is in establishing our legitimacy as Space users and developers. That has clearly been done. 

Next, the nuts and bolts processes. No need to be

dragged through the details of the joint and Army capabilities generation processes, but know they exist. We have a

defined Space Planning Process which uses Army subject

matter experts from appropriate areas of interest such as

signal, maneuver, and military intelligence, as well as Space,

to develop functional area analyses, needs analyses, solutions, and investment analyses. The results of this process

will serve as the basis for Space inputs to the Army POM,

and will be published in the Army Space Master Plan.

Beyond that we go to the joint level where we use the Joint

Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)

to move our Space capability needs from ideas to firepower. In fact, we are currently at various stages of approval on

JCIDS capabilities documents for the Counter Surveillance

and Reconnaissance System, a Space electronic warfare system, a Space surveillance system, and Theater Missile

Warning. Our equities and capability needs are considered

and honored because we have legitimate Space issues, and

because we use Army and joint institutional processes to

pursue our cause. And our cause is land warfighting dominance — same as the Army’s.

SPACE SMART LEADERS

To take us through that requirements process, we need

Space-smart leaders, both military and civilian, at every level

outside the traditional Space fields who know what Spacebased assets can do for them and how to harness those

capabilities to help them fulfill their missions. The Army

also needs an expanded and developed Space cadre. 

The January 2001 Commission to Assess United States

National Security Space Management and Organization,

a.k.a., “The Space Commission,” recommended that the

Army (as well as the other Services) develop a cadre of

Space professionals. The Army had already recognized the

need for Space-smart officers by launching Functional Area

40 in January 1998 with the implementation of Officer

Personnel Management System XXI. 

The Army is reaping great benefits from the relatively

small number in our Space cadre: 1,700 in the Army

(approximately 140 FA 40s and 1600 others) vs 43,000 in

the Air Force, and 17,000 in the Navy.) Many of those 1700

are in key positions on the Army Staff and in joint positions

where they can develop the Army’s position and ensure that

the Army’s position is represented well. Others are in acquiThrough education and experience, the number of 

warriors who understand more than how to “turn on their

computer,” or who turn to their Space operations officer,

will grow. The increasing number of Space-smart leaders

will demand that Army Space equities and requirements

are presented, tested, and discussed in all forums.

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Newcomer’s View, page 53)
his edition of the ASJ looks at broader issues of Space

and the Army that go well beyond the individual capabilities of soldiers and hardware and beyond the contributions of the Army Space community to joint and Army

warfighting. As the anchor article notes, this issue is

about what the Army should do for Space rather than

what Space does for the Army. A very interesting concern

for the Army in its approach to Space at this higher level

is what it should do to shape Space development at the

national and international levels. I am not writing from

the standpoint of some kind of Space altruism, but from

practical utility for the Army over the longer term. The

point is that because the Army needs Space dominance to

ensure land warfare dominance, it needs Space technological dominance. The Army, therefore, should do its part to

ensure the development and success of Space technology

efforts. 

Space is now a vital U.S. economic interest on which

the global economy depends. Worldwide economic foundations have changed from agricultural to industrial to

information. Space is a foundational element in generating and moving that information. Countries can craft

economic niches that leverage Space to great advantage.

Successful commercial enterprises can be based on anything from building Space systems to providing support

services such as launch and satellite control to providing

Space-based services such as communications and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Development of

such strengths creates centers of expertise and excellence

as professionals gather to form each nexus of Space

development and operational capability. This simultaneously sets the stage for dependencies to be developed for

all those who don’t have a particular center of excellence,

but need its product. “Centers of excellence” should be

read as a strength, and “dependency” as weakness. 

Of secondary but major importance, the complexity

and cost of military Space is so great that it cannot be sustained for military-only purposes. It must be founded on

a strong, independently profitable commercial Space sector. Therefore, it is critical that U.S. Space centers of

excellence are prolific, if not dominant, in the global

economy.

This should concern the Army in two vital ways.

First, the United States will obviously not have the only

centers of excellence in economic, technical, and production terms, so there will be a sorting process that determines which ones end up here. It is important to remember that these centers must be economically profitable

and/or benefit from subsidies to remain dominant. The

Army needs to exert its influence so that the technologies/products it is critically dependent upon are either

U.S. assets or those of our most trustworthy allies. An

implication is that the Army should avoid dependencies

based on sources not predominated by U.S. efforts.

Second, the Army must be careful to envision all that

Space could portend for land warfare of 2020 and beyond

and then actively pursue development of capabilities to

ensure its dominance in that “competition among the

armies of the world” as well as in the competition among

the U.S. military services in their contribution to joint warfare in support of national objectives. Obviously, this

means that the Army cannot view Space as somebody

else’s place and somebody else’s mission. The Army cannot limit itself to gleaning Space benefits from the efforts

of other nations, corporations, and military services.

While Space is a large and fertile field, it is neither so large

as to eliminate competition, nor so fertile that it will produce what is needed without diligent, focused effort.

While it is incumbent on the United States to promote development of Space technology, production, and

services, it is imperative that the Army consistently invest

in and stimulate those areas that can be expected to benefit from its continuing land warfare dominance. The

ongoing transformation of the U.S. military continues to

Army Space Journal Summer 2003

The International Competition and Space

T

By Terry Nelson

FDIC Column

6

The View From 

(Army) Space
7

exchange mass and armor for precision and agility that are

enabled by faster and better information. This is a challenge to nobody more than the Army. We like to remind

everyone that it was the Army that was “first in Space” as

it has been first in meeting many U.S. challenges. As we

embrace and invest in Space properly, we can also be “first

in transformation” by leading the change that ensures our

continuing warfighting superiority. Watch us.

Twenty Army officers proved they had nothing to be

superstitious about on Friday, June 13 this month as they

began their instruction in the Functional Area 40 Space

Operations Qualification Course offered by the Force

Development & Integration Center-West. 

This class is the fourth to take the intense eight-week

instruction designed to build a corps of Space experts.

Graduating officers will assist combatant commanders in

using Space to support the warfighters.

They are a small class, but a very important one.

Each graduating class has an impact far beyond its numbers.

The students have been asked to help in improving

the course for the next class. 

I told them, “Changes which effect this course are

occurring every day. It’s your job to let us know what

direction we should be taking.”

Course instruction for the students is divided into

three segments beginning with classroom instruction. 

Another segment involves off-site visits to places

such as the National Reconnaissance Office and the

National Imagery and Mapping Agency in Washington,

D.C. This includes hands-on training with the Army

Space Program Office, which developed the Tactical

Exploitation of National Capabilities Space (TENCAP)

support systems in use by Army warfighters.

The culmination of the course is found in a 30-hour

command post exercise designed to test each student’s

proficiency in 22 individual critical tasks. After graduation, the new FA 40 officers are assigned to operational

staffs and Space systems program offices.

Col. David Shaffer, commander of the 1st Space

Brigade (Provisional), U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense

Command, and an alumnus of the course, made opening

remarks.

“This is a great opportunity for you as well as a terrific course.”

“Wherever you are assigned — you will teach and sell

Space. That’s part of your mission.”

Shaffer briefed the new students on a number of subjects to include the new Provisional Brigade structure

within U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command,

the official Army Space policy (signed in April), new U.S.

Strategic Command priorities (Space being at the top of

the list), and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense.

He concluded, “Finally, realize that 70 percent of the

learning in this class depends on you. Talk to each other

and understand what is being taught. Not all of what you

need is in this course so talk to those in your next

Command and then look for those extra pieces of information you will need.”

“Remember, take advantage of your classmates’ experiences.”

Plans are under way for the next FA40 class — slated

for August.

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

Front row, MAJ Joseph D’costa, MAJ Mark T. Vande Hei, MAJ Alan Personius, CPT Mike Russell, COL David Shaffer, LTC

James Woods, MAJ Chris Livingstone, MAJ Bill Beck; 2nd row, LTC Jeff Perkins, MAJ Leonard Draves, MAJ Guy M.

Burrow, LTC Steve Schuler, LTC Mike Powers, LTC Mark Anderson, MAJ Michael Willis; back row, MAJ Charles

Anderson, LTC Conrad Bonner, MAJ Rick Dow, LTC Jeff King, LTC Curt Stover, MAJ Jerry Shay
eter B. Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force,

serves as the DoD executive agent for Space and is

the Director of the National Reconnaissance

Office. He has authority over all Defense

Department and NRO Space programs, is the Air

Force Acquisition executive for Space, and oversees and directs the National Security Space

Architect. In April, he visited U.S. Army Space and

Missile Defense Command’s Colorado Springs

offices to get his first hands-on overview of the

Command. This included the Command’s involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the visit,

he talked with Army Space Journal’s Michael

Howard about the transforming force, and the role

Space plays in that transformation.

From your perspective, what are the key aspects

of the military’s future in Space? 

Well, clearly I think the national security Space

assets give us a huge advantage over our adversaries in

warfighting and also in the collection of intelligence

information. I see us embarking on a course wherein

we can maintain that advantage and even extend it. It’s

going to take resources and it’s going to take dedicated

people. Speaking of dedicated people, I can’t tell you

how pleased I was to be here at Army Space & Missile

Defense Command today — to see just how the Army

has stepped up to the challenge of developing a professional cadre.

With the Air Force being the lead agency for

Space coming out of the Space commission, what

do you see as the Army’s role in Space? Why is

there an Army Space?

Well, the Army, in its own words, defines itself as

being the largest user of Space assets. And from the

point of view of the numbers of people, it clearly is. I

think it is vitally important that the Army understands

Space, participates in our national security Space program development, be at the point where it can provide

meaningful input into requirements flow and participate with us in acquisition. It’s an enormously important function to the Army, and therefore participation is

very much warranted and welcome.

Is transformation occurring?

What has happened is that the Air Force has been

designated as the DoD’s executive agent to Space. I see

myself in that role as facilitating cooperation among

the various military components, but also the intelligence community as well. All of us that are involved in

warfighting activity or collection of intelligence information can benefit from these national security Space

assets.

So this new definition of how it’s going is going

well?

I think it’s going extremely well, and I’m very genuine when I say my visit today really has impressed me

positively, because the Army is clearly stepping up to

the role that we’ve just talked about.

Could you detail a couple of those things you

saw today that impressed you?

I’m enormously impressed with the Army’s leadership in Blue Force Tracking from Space — some of the

results that have been achieved have saved lives in Iraq

already. I’m impressed by the fact that the Army is

8 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Undersecretary of the Air Force

P

Q&A

Peter B. Teets

I'm enormously impressed with the Army's leadership in 

Blue Force Tracking from Space — some of the results that 

have been achieved have saved lives in Iraq already.
actually operating the control segment for the Defense

Space Communication System Program and is making

certain that those secure communication links are available not only to Army users, but Navy and Air Force

users as well.

You mentioned BFT, but when that was being

briefed to you today, you commented at the end

that this is so important to you because you’re talking about lives. Isn’t that really the bottom line of

what we’re talking about with all of the capabilities

we are bringing from Space?

It certainly is. The assets that we’ve employed in

Space now and are using from Space really have

changed the way we fight wars. This whole idea of precision weapons delivery is enabled by our Global

Positioning Satellite system. Think about how many

Army soldiers are equipped with GPS receivers and

know immediately where they are and what their geolocation is and where the geo-locations of their targets

are. They know that from radio frequency communications from Space.

Are there any other examples from the current

operations in Iraq that you are seeing, from the

muddy boot side of Space, that you can mention?

We have the advantage of collecting important intelligence information from Space. That information,

while I can’t discuss specifics of it, is being used on a

wide front in Iraq and very much to our advantage.

One phrase that graphically describes our Army

is that it’s transforming, and another is that we are

also an Army at war. We’ve talked about some of

the operations in Iraq. Do you see these operations

contributing to or solidifying a critical role of

Space not just in the Army, but also across the

whole military?

Very definitely so. If you look at today’s systems

such as GPS, there could be no more transformational

kind of a system. If you look at what we have on the

drawing board, so to speak, a couple of the National

Security Space programs that are inherently transformational will be Space-based radar, where from Space

we’ll be able to determine ground mobile target information. We also will be able to take synthetic aperture

radar imagery, that is to say, pictures from the radar

satellite constellation. It will transform the way we can

track and target, and understand movements of our

adversaries. Secondly, we are very much involved, and

the Army’s playing an important role in it in transformational communications. We will have a transformed

communications system, which will really eliminate

bandwidth as a constraint and it will eliminate access as

a constraint. All those thousands of Army users will be

able to have access to high bandwidth communications.

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 9
10 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Another aspect of this is that a lot

of which you speak is very technical

and highly classified. Have you seen

a grander understanding at your level,

of what it is that we can bring to the

warfighter? Do the warfighters

understand our capabilities in Space?

More so now than ever before. I

don’t want to say that we have a perfect

system now, but I can tell you that I think

we are better connected now in a network sense than we have ever been. I

think the war in Iraq is demonstrating

just how well connected we are. We are

learning lessons all at the same time.

When this conflict ends, and hopefully

that will be soon, we very clearly need to

go back and do an overview or review

and learn from our experiences in Iraq.

Those lessons learned will help us get

even better connected than we are today.

Space assets will provide a vitally important element of that connection capability.

So — this platform of understanding of where we are today, is it going

to help us to where we’re going to go

tomorrow?

No doubt about it.

In what ways?

Well, I think some of the things we

are learning right now from the experience in Iraq is that we have connection

capability of information flow across the

battlefield that is better than it has been

in any past engagement, but it can still

get better. We can remove some of the

obstacles that prevent free flow of information to blue forces that are on the

ground or at sea or in the air.

Are there any other thoughts that

you have about this overall topic of

the role of Space in the future?

I think that one of the most important things we need to do is build the

cadre of Space professional talent. We

need to focus attention and we need to

focus resources on that. I’m very

impressed with what Rick Geraci is

doing here at Army Space &Missile

Defense Command and I’ve been very

pleased to work with Joe Cosumano

back in Washington. I also had a

pleasant engagement with Les

Brownley Undersecretary of the

Army. I must say that if we can build

the proper Space cadre made up of

talented Army people, talented Air

Force people, talented Navy and

Marine Corps folks as well as intelligence community people, we will have

really positioned ourselves to maximize the advantage that Space

can give us. Space is the

ultimate high ground.

And when you talk

about the Space cadre,

you are speaking of the

Space officers or the

people in the military

who go out and populate

the general....

Absolutely. Who are

the operators, who are the

acquirers, who are the

people involved in defining what the requirements

are for our National

Security Space efforts.

That all contributes to the

overall understanding of the

capabilities.

It surely does.
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 11
o all the many theorists, tacticians, and warfighters who

are blindly overlooking the coming requirement for the

Army to fight through, from, and to Space, read on.

To all of those mired in the comfort of 20th century

land domain warfare doctrine and the spirit of the bayonet, listen closely. As an Army, we can no longer

afford to exclusively prosecute land domain warfare simply as a function of land domain forces

operating in the confines of terra firma. The vision

of the Objective Force to see first, understand first, act

first, and finish decisively speaks to the critical need for

our unit of action (UA) forces to leverage non-line-ofsight lethal and nonlethal effects of the air, sea, and

Space domains to achieve overmatch and only when

prepared to close with and destroy the enemy in direct

combat. Beginning with the Stryker Brigade Combat

Teams, our Army begins its transition from the 63 tons

of twisted steel and heavy force appeal to a mobile, hostile, and agile force that will fight in a very different way.

Army Space forces are a critical part of that new

mobile, hostile, and agile force and will bring the kinds

of non-line-of-sight combat power through Space force

application necessary to prosecute 21st century warfare. 

For those brothers and sisters in the profession of

arms who have no idea what the definition of Space

force application is but know the meaning of “lazin’

and blazin’,” “hurling rockets,” and “shakin’ and

bakin’,” fear not. You are well on your way to understanding how lethal and nonlethal effects will be

brought to the enemy through, from, and to Space. I

am certain that even my brothers on the gunline and

those poking through the top end of turrets would have

by now perceived that Space force application is the

bringing of combat power against terrestrial and celestial-based targets by military weapons systems operating

through, from, and to Space. The force application mission area also includes ballistic missile defense and force

projection. While there are no force application assets

operating in Space today, we must begin to plan and

develop the concepts of employment now as we move

toward the concepts of “global strike” and “counter

anti-access.” We must re-evaluate the use of legacy

weapon systems and through concept development and

experimentation determine the requirements for future

weapon systems that give future joint, interagency, and

multinational forces the ability to project force and conduct operations through, from, and to Space. 

Applying Effects Through Space

Creative minds through the centuries have done the important

work of adapting past gains to an ever-changing present, a work

which we must continue. — Thomas A. Harris

An example of a legacy weapon system that could

provide future conventional lethal and non-lethal Space

force application capability is the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force. Nuclear-tipped

ICBMs represent a strategic global strike capability

designed to be the ultimate kinetic effect weapon to

defend our nation from the threat of nuclear holocaust.

ICBMs are the first of the family of Space force application capabilities because they launch from Earth, travel through Space, and re-enter the atmosphere to strike

terrestrial targets. ICBMs have several desirable characteristics we should consider regarding future warfare.

They are launched under force protection from secured

facilities at standoff ranges, are capable of reaching any

target within minutes, and are difficult to defend

against. A conventionally armed ICBM or conventional ballistic missile will provide part of the future global

strike, inter-theater strike capability, and precision lethal

and non-lethal effects to the Joint Force commander.

These weapons would be particularly effective in counter-anti-access operations. Army Forces could provide a

conventionally armed future hybrid of legacy Army tac12 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

T

By LTC Greg Palka

Perspective

Between the Idea and the Reality,

Between the Motion and the Act, 

Falls the Shadow

-T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

Space Force Application 
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 13

tical, theater high altitude air defense, or Tomahawk

land attack missile systems to enable global strike

and inter-theater strike capability. These systems

would resource the future combatant commanders

with options to provide lethal and non-lethal effects

from standoff ranges and provide the kinetic punch

or non-lethal effect to set the conditions for followon forces in land domain combat. We are seeing the

first forms of a quasi-inter-theater Space force application mission being conducted today in Operation

Iraqi Freedom. Tomahawk land attack missiles

launched from the U.S. European Command’s area of

responsibility (AOR) struck targets in the U. S. Central

Command’s AOR. This type of capability will only

improve and provide our future Force commanders

with the agility and flexibility to strike the adversary at

will.

Applying Effects from Space

As our nation develops the transformed Joint Force

of the 2015 timeframe, we must look to the construct

of multipurpose near-Space and Space-based lethal and

non-lethal effects weapon systems. These new systems

represent our nation’s ability to prosecute warfare from

Space into the mid-21st century. Near-Space (stratospheric-ionospheric) systems like the SR-71 Blackbird

and on-orbit satellite assets have been providing critical

information to commanders at all levels of warfare for

more than 50 years. As we look to the timeframe of

2015 and beyond, systems that operate in the nearSpace and Space domain will become more than information centric systems. They will become integral multipurpose nodes that can see and assist in understanding

first and that provide critical ways and means for the

unit of employment (UE) commander to act first.

Systems like a high altitude airship or geostationary

stratospheric-ionospheric satellite (GSIS) could provide

not only a platform for advanced sensors and communication systems but a deployment and employment

platform for lethal and non-lethal inter-theater and

global strike effect weapons. A GSIS could deploy

medium-range missile systems, high-powered

microwave, radio frequency, and directed energy systems or a legion of microswarming unmanned aerial

vehicles representing a commander’s first fighter capability to deny, disrupt, degrade, or destroy an adversary’s

counter-anti-access capability. On-orbit assets provide

the Joint Force commander or UE commander to

quickly deploy lethal and non-lethal effect systems to

the AOR (hours and minutes in some cases based on

orbitology). Again, on-orbit assets could provide

unique capabilities to prosecute global strike and counter-anti-access warfare. Fighting from near-Space and

Space is a critical capability that our nation must experiment with today to be ready for future conflicts. NearSpace and Space-based capabilities will represent not

only a key enabler to achieve decision superiority but a

multifunction effects platform able to prosecute strike

operations early in the conflict to shape the land

domain fight. As an aside, we must assume that nearpeer competitors of the 2015 timeframe will recognize

the incredible capability that our nation’s near-Space

and Space-based systems represent and design methods

Overcoming inertia to

fight battles of the

future

Military theorists for centuries have done a great

job describing the effectiveness and efficiencies of

the “last war.” Very few have been able to see into

the future and convince those mired in the comfort

of past doctrine and scope of capability that warfare has changed. 

Space force application is another area where a

lack of education and historical inertia will need to

be overcome. It is critical for our Army to recognize the significance of this new form of warfare

and to begin developing the requirements for the

Army's contribution to Space warfare.

(See Application, page 53)
14 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Theme Article

The 

Army’s

Future 

in

Space
15

ecause this issue provides a speculative platform to expand the technological horizon, it

is a natural follow-on to the last issue. A fine

line separates the theme of this issue from

the previous one: “The Role of Space in

Army Transformation.” As we consider the

theme of this new issue, we should not lose

sight of the five essential Space operations

tasks introduced in the Transformation issue:

· Support increased deployability and

reduced theater footprint.

· Achieve situational understanding “off

the ramp” during entry operations.

· Support precision maneuver, fires, sustainment, and information.

· Enable continuous information

and decision superiority.

· Protect the force during all

phases of the operation.

These are as relevant as we look at

the Army’s future in Space, as they

were when we looked at

Transformation. This edition, however, moves from what Space does

for the Army to what the Army

ought to do for Space. 

We begin by considering the “big

picture,” a net assessment of the

effect of our growth in Space on the

competition between nations for success and dominance. We continue

this discussion with an article detailing

Space’s role as a vital national interest and

economic center of gravity for the United

States and other nations. Then we bring the

argument to the Department of Defense

level with a notional description of combat

support from Space in 2030. When we think

of the increasing number of users and uses

that have been made of the Internet over the

past decade, we can begin to appreciate how

difficult it is to accurately predict all the

directions in which technological advances

can lead. But a look at the possibilities after

30 ideal years of Space combat development

will provide an instructive backdrop. 

We want to develop a “Service lanes”

approach based on the particular utility of

Space to the Services. The Army is the primary DoD user of Space capabilities, with

heavy reliance on force enhancement functions to provide combat support. It will be

interesting to look beyond Service support to

the utility and possibility of using Spacebased kinetic and directed energy systems to

help win land battles. We also explore the

need to aggressively target the adversary’s terrestrial Space assets. This could be an Army

job, where appropriate, but certainly a high

interest item for the Army because of implications for the land battle. 

Then, lest anyone believe we are advocating unconstrained use of Space, we deliver a

“voice of reason” warning against over-crediting Space that should simultaneously clarify

the limits of Space power while reinforcing

its importance. We also present a thoughtful

argument for developing military Space with

an eye toward turning warfare away from

Space if at all possible. 

The issue’s theme ends with a trio of articles wrapping up what the Army’s role in

Space ought to be. First, we examine current

Service roles and missions and the process

that is used to make assignments in order to

propose future changes in how Army responsibility in Space should be defined. 

The second article calls for the aggressive

participation of the Army in defining Space

architecture to support land warfare in the

National Security Space Architecture. Finally,

we review the concept and method of general, large-scale innovation in warfare (such as

aircraft carriers and tanks) and ask if the

Army is being innovative enough as Space

continues to increase its impact on land force

dominance.

B

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

Army, Space, the future

The overall intent is to move beyond thinking

about what Space does for the Army and to grapple

with what the Army ought to do for Space.
n February 2003 I had a unique experience with an Army

Objective Force Experiment conducted by the Battle

Command Battle Laboratory (BCBL)-Leavenworth.

Instead of serving as a player or a controller, I served as a

data collector. My sole responsibility was to observe the

experiment, collect data against a number of predetermined dependent variable constructs, and submit my findings. 

As I write this article, the BCBL is collecting and condensing the formal experimental findings into an official

report. What follows are my insights about the experiment

from a Space operation officer’s perspective. As such, these

comments are unofficial and certainly biased by my Space

operations background. I think, however, that they are relevant to debate within the Army Space community and

could be discussed at the next Army Space Symposium.

The Unit of Action Battle Command

Experiment No. 1

The focus of this first of many future experiments was

on the organization and operation of the unit of action

(UA). The experiment followed closely on the heels of the

unit of employment exercise conducted at Fort Knox, Ky.

The experiment examined a new UA level staff structure

conducting multiple operations while using a new decisionmaking process, the recognitional planning model (RPM).

The RPM is a commander-driven, execution-based process

designed to support UA commanders operating in a timeconstrained environment where full military decision-making process (MDMP) application is not practical. 

The experiment blended training sessions for the RPM,

multiple simulated battle runs to stress the UA staff, and

multiple, detailed after action reports (AARs). Data collectors studied the commander’s and staff’s ability to plan and

execute simultaneous operations in comparison with our

current staff structure and MDMP. The experiment was

intended to provide insights into the core functions of battle command and investigate key enablers for battle command in the Objective Force.

The BCBL’s intent for this first experiment, however,

was not resolution of all questions facing the Objective

Force unit of action, but to determine which questions were

resolved and which questions still needed resolution

through future experiments. The experimental CPX-type

design addressed the key questions in Table 1.

Personal Observations

Finding One: In the year 2015, you don’t want to be a Career

Field (CF) S-3 Air.

One goal of the Objective Force UA design is dramatic reduction of the command and control footprint of a

brigade-sized force. The greatest savings in manpower will

be realized through automation of routine and rule-base

driven activities. Expert systems are already under development that can find problems, conduct coordination, and

deconflict problems with a mission order such as control

measures, asset overtasking, and logistics. Armed with the

work we as leaders and trainers put into codifying the task,

condition, and standard for staff work, Army scientists, university researchers, and military contractors are now programming prototype systems. The more a staff task has

been codified in today’s brigade staff, the more likely it will

be automated in the UA staff.

The title of this first finding may be explained by imagining that a career field or branch has been created called

Tactical S-3 Air. If we estimate that 40 to 70 percent of the

tasks of a CF S-3 Air involve deconfliction, coordination,

and integration into an existing plan, this imaginary career

field would be heading to the chopping block in the

Objective Force. Because the most common product of

the S-3 Air is a one-sheet matrix developed from and based

upon a set of routine heuristics or “rules of thumb,” it is an

16 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

I

By John Graham

Three findings for the Army Space tribe

from the Objective Force Unit of Action

Battle Command Experiment No. 1

Experiments

Summer Theme
17

easy target for automation. If one

more brigade staff position can be

found that is 40 to 70 percent

automatable, the Objective Force staff

can combine two positions into one

and reduce its footprint. The single

combined position would then perform the military “art” portions of

the tasks that could not be automated.

Where does that leave the FA 40

Space operations officer? My experiences as a Space operations trainer

and as a leader on deployment with

the 1st Space Battalion tell me that we

are far to the right in the military art

end of the spectrum (see Figure 1). I

cannot count the number of times

that I was asked for a one-page “smart

sheet” that a leader could use as

heuristics for employing or understanding Space capabilities. After

gathering my team together and calling in expertise from the battalion and

brigade staff, we would inevitably

have a one-page sheet with a four- toeight-page addendum explaining the “it depends” criteria.

Simply put, the nature of Space operations is more art

than operationalized guides. The Space operations staff

officer is faced with numerous hurdles that make our task

more military art than a set of solutions. The need to apply

a large measure of military art to Space operations is due

to the fact that many support requirements are just not intuitive. Very intelligent leaders that tell us to “move that satellite” offer a common example of this challenge. The military art requirement is further exacerbated by every friendly, gray, and enemy

satellite being one

of a kind, by

complicated levels

of classification

and compartmentalization that regulate current

Space operations,

and by incomplete, still-forming

scientific understanding of Space. 

This is not to

say that the S-3

Air position is

now an unimportant function in the Legacy Force brigade staff. I selected

the S-3 Air position for discussion purposes only. It is to say

that, after years of very intelligent officers seeking to achieve

consistency in a difficult and complex task, the result is

reams of codified heuristics, representational methods, and

look-up tables. When a set of tasks has reached this level of

maturity, there is a good chance that many of the tasks can

be automated. If 40 percent of the tasks of the two positions can be automated, then I offer that they can be combined into a single position for the Objective Force staff.

Finding Two: Redefine Decision-Making Success

When the Army studies decision-making, one critical

measurement is the “relevant information collection time.”

Because of this metric, the Transformation Force focused

on methods to put information at “the finger tips” to be

readily accessible

to the commander.

As a result, we talk

about extensive

databases with terminals that can

rapidly access and

present the information in a usable

form.

This measurement, however, is

not relevant to

Objective Force

battle command.

For the UA commander, information that is readily accessible is information that is too late

for the decision at hand. Rapid decisive operations in a

dynamic environment change the entire tempo of decisionmaking. If an operation is dynamic, then, by definition, the

ground truth could be reliable only for periods of time as

short as 10 minutes and be significantly different 10 minutes

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Experiments, page 56)

Advice to Space operators —

gleaned from observations of

the Unit of Action experiment

· Use caution in creating one-page battle book cheat sheets.

You may be doing a disservice in oversimplifying the very complex data that a leader needs for decision-making. Your Space

knowledge and the military art of application is your true value

to the force. 

· Learn your leader’s decision process and figure out when to

“push” the right information at the right time. With the

expanded role of Army Space in current operations, you are

already familiar with this requirement. 

· If you have the opportunity to affect UA knowledge object

construction, take the time to envision where Space operations

capabilities will be in 2015.

UA Experiment Goals 

(Battle Command Battle Laboratory)

+ Determine core functions of Battle Command by echelon

+ Determine the appropriate decision-making processes

+ Investigate key enablers to facilitate Battle Command

- Distributed and networked staff

- Distributed planning

- Decentralized execution within command’s intent

- Characteristics of collaboration tools for the commander

Table 1

Goals addressed by current and future Fort Leavenworth Battle Command

Battle Laboratory Unit of Action experiment series.
egating our enemy’s ability to take advantage of Space-based

capabilities is a basic objective in our Space control doctrine.

The need to maintain the friendly use of Space while denying its use to our opponents will clearly be critical to Army

Objective Force successes on the future battlefield.

Understanding how and why our adversary uses Space is an

important aspect of the Space portion of our intelligence

preparation of the battlespace (IPB) doctrine. Using that

IPB to determine how to most effectively take that capability away from our enemy is the desired end-state. The satellite, the on-orbit segment of the Space system, seems to get

most of the attention when we consider an adversary’s use

of a Space-based capability. But it is the terrestrial segments

of the Space system that control and task the satellite and

deliver the product or service to the user that are, for virtually every Space-based capability in use today, the most vulnerable parts of that Space system. Accordingly, the

ground-based part of an adversary’s Space system deserves

the most detailed scrutiny in the IPB and targeting

processes. 

Adversary’s access to and use of Space capabilities

Space-based capabilities allow a threat actor to instantly

overcome numerous and significant military disadvantages.

Even a third-world adversary can inexpensively leap forward

technologically and field a more lethal and agile military

force by making use of available commercial Space capabilities. These services allow our opponents to close the gaps

in our technology lead without having to establish huge

developmental programs that take years and require considerable monetary resources. An excellent example is the

worldwide availability of commercial satellite imagery.

Countries are obtaining photographic intelligence that as

recently as three years ago, was the exclusive preserve of the

Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon. The resolution quality of commercial imagery is good enough to

monitor the massing of troops or artillery and to identify

the state of preparedness of military facilities, and it is

improving every year. Today a few thousand dollars can

access what was once the exclusive domain of the superpowers. For less than a hundred dollars, archived imagery,

which is good enough to make military plans, can be purchased and delivered from the Internet. A growing number

of countries and commercial consortia are building and

operating satellite imagery systems simply because of the

demand and profitability. 

Commercially available Space-based communications

are even more readily available. Mobile satellite telephone

services are now available almost worldwide, are very reliable and the technology (for the user) is easy to operate.

This service is reliable, inexpensive, and increasingly more

secure from “eavesdropping” due to extremely sophisticated encryption technology. Mobile, secure satellite communications (SATCOM) give an adversarial commander immediate command and control capability, without the need for

bulky and vulnerable terrestrial communication equipment.

Military forces with 1960-era tanks and personnel carriers

are carrying global positioning system receivers, satellite

phones, and maps that were made from commercial

imagery. These technological advances require us to be

even better at IPB and associated Space analysis and presage

the future need for sophisticated means to find and kill terrestrial Space targets.

An adversary desires to gain intelligence on a U.S. troop

buildup in the region. Since he is a thinking adversary, his

IPB has helped him determine potential enemy staging and

assembly areas in the region. For several years he has consistently imaged these locations to verify his IPB analysis

and to build a database to assist in determining changes that

would indicate actions or a possible buildup for an attack.

He augments his IPB with high-resolution imagery, which

helps with detailed target planning. The target folders are

then put in the hands of small teams that finalize plans for

sabotage attacks against his adversary’s most critical nodes

18 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Targeting an Adversary’s Space

Capabilities Begins with the

Terrestrial Segment

N

By LTC Dean Taylor and CW4 Daniel Rupp

Summer Theme

Start Line
19

in the marshalling area. The adversary does not need to get

continuous high-resolution imagery to receive early warning

or build the target folder. For more of a time sensitive “key

read,” a quick phone call from his imagery analyst at a

downlink site may be all that is needed. While many analysts

are fixated on how the enemy decision-maker will receive

the actual image, a simple phone call or text report has told

him all he needs to know about U.S. troops approaching his

border. He also augments his own imagery satellites with

open market commercial imagery sales that will fill holes in

his planning, targeting and basic situational awareness. Our

adversary is using this imagery system to help him trigger

when to launch a massive ballistic missile attack on our forward tactical assembly areas in order to disrupt our operations. 

Preventing the above scenario requires a thorough

understanding of that satellite imagery system that delivered

the key piece of information including understanding the

imagery satellite’s capability (resolution, coverage area, slew

angle off nadir, etc.). Our intelligence analysts must be able

to conduct nodal analysis to examine the entire tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination (TPED) of the

satellite imagery system. The analyst needs to know when

the collection requests are ordered, how the image is sent to

the processing facility, the level and expertise of the analysts

conducting the exploitation, and the dissemination paths of

the actual digital image. Within these links and nodes there

are sufficient opportunities to deny or delay the adversary’s

ability to gain timely intelligence from his imagery. A satellite imagery system clearly includes the satellite, along with

command and control, ground control operations, satellite

ground stations, analysis and processing facilities, and telecommunications nodes. The adversary’s terrestrial Space assets include:

telecommunications centers (radio

and television); radio relay facilities;

fiber optic networks, nodes, and repeater stations;

microwave transmission networks and nodes; SATCOM

links; and fixed and mobile national command, control,

communications, and intelligence centers. The elements of

the satellite ground station component can include the

antenna apertures, power generation, operations area, communications links, or digital storage systems. The TPED

components of the Space system are critical to understanding how we can target to achieve the desired effects.

IPB to Target Development

Once targeteers have identified the enemy activity they

need to disrupt or deny, they can determine the key target

systems, components, or elements that should be attacked,

degraded, or exploited to produce the desired effects.

Effectively targeting an adversary’s ability to obtain imagery

may very well get “inside his decision-making cycle” as well

as reduce his ability to support his forces in the field.

Targets can be neutralized by a variety of means, including

nonlethal fires generated by the commander’s information

operations (IO) campaign. Effective non-lethal fires against

a Space system node could well become the preferred

method of attack, but this requires extremely detailed nodal

analysis and Space IPB. Another non-lethal IO capability

available to the targeting process is electronic warfare (EW).

In our terrestrial Space asset example, an EW attack might

be the perfect approach. Jamming overpowers the right

SATCOM dish signal, which causes the imagery report to

be disrupted and never delivered to the intended user.

Simply adding a terrestrial Space segment to the comman-

(See Targeting Adversaries, page 46)

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

The threat’s use of Space

Space-based capabilities are increasingly integral to

our adversary's security and operational doctrine.

Capabilities such as high-bandwidth communications,

satellite-generated intelligence of our dispositions and

movements, and precision navigation and weather data

can provide invaluable combat advantages to a threat

nation. Access to Space and the advantages derived from

operating in Space are being affected by technological

progress throughout the world. Recent trends in the

availability of Space technology and the directions of its

development clearly suggest that the military community

needs to aggressively identify and pursue the best techniques and procedures to target the adversary's use of

Space. The Army Space Support Team is uniquely qualified and properly positioned at the tactical and operational levels to help take away an adversary’s use of Space.

The place to start the process is in the evaluation of the

terrestrial segment.

Effectively targeting

an adversary’s ability

to obtain imagery

may very well get

“inside his decisionmaking cycle” as

well as reduce his

ability to support his

forces in the field. 
t is increasingly clear that Space is becoming critically

important to how the United States employs several key

instruments of national power. Prior to 1990 among the

political, economic, military, and informational instruments of power, Space exerted its major influence in the

economic arena. By the end of the decade, however,

there was a dramatic shift in the way Space capabilities

were used as instruments of national military power.

Looking into the future, Space’s role increases exponentially, especially when reviewing the role it is projected to

play in the ongoing transformational efforts within the

Department of Defense. 

A decade ago Space was seen as a vital component in

the nation’s economic power. Global markets depended

on satellites to link nations on every continent to the economic capitals of the world. As the global information

age developed, Space provided the most efficient and

fastest means to interconnect. To become competitive

and stay competitive, corporations from around the world

realized the necessity to participate in this global revolution. Throughout the decade this pressure intensified and

drove an explosive growth of the Space industry to develop, build, and launch satellites that facilitated the gathering, transmission, and sharing of information. Space was

looked upon as a growth industry with a wide range of

countries expanding or entering the commercial marketplace (i.e., Russia, France, Japan, India, etc.). High expectations for growth ensued, driven by the Internet and

telecommunications applications. Late in the decade,

however, and quite unexpectedly, the high growth rate did

not continue. Future projections of information-based

companies fell far short of anticipated levels. Costs to do

business in and through Space were much higher than

projected. Risks to get satellites into orbit also grew, driven by several launch vehicle and satellite failures.

Additionally, the proliferation and reduced cost of fiber

optic cable put a major dent into the business model for

the use of Space. Where fiber optics had once been

extremely costly, it now came in line with the cost of laying copper and had the advantage of reduced requirements for fiber versus copper cabling because of fiber’s

much higher bandwidth capacity. These pressures led to

the demise or significant reduction of several notable

companies such as Iridium, Globalstar, Astrolink, ICO

Global Communications, Orbcomm, Teledesic and

numerous others. 

While a viable argument could have been made 10

years ago that Space would become a key component for

employing the nation’s economic power — that is not the

case today. Instead of becoming the backbone for the

globe’s information age, the Space industry has carved a

niche for products and services that can be provided most

efficiently from Space. The demand for Space-based

products has affected the health and viability of several

support industries as well. The infrastructure that supports launch is one of these. The number of launch pads

worldwide has declined precipitously, which impacts

quantity and frequency of launches. The decline of the

U.S. Space industry has not gone unnoticed by DoD.

Guidance from the Secretary of Defense on down has

addressed the need for DoD to focus efforts and initiatives to ensure the entire industry remains viable to produce the systems needed for national defense.

During the same decade that Space declined as an economic element of national power, a significant rise in its

importance to the military element took hold. From the

Gulf War onward, its key roles in command and control,

communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance has dominated military commanders and planners

in their preparation and conduct of operations. Whether

it is linking commanders from the strategic to the tactical

level, accurately maneuvering units on and over the battlespace, targeting enemy units or positions, analyzing

environmental conditions in the area of operations,

20 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

The role of Space in economic and military

instruments of power strategically places

Space to leap forward

I

By COL Frank Todd 

Summer Theme

National Power
21

obtaining missile warning or receiving, seeing, and understanding the enemy’s capabilities and intent, Space is

bringing these capabilities to the fight today. 

Could the nation prosecute today’s wars without

Space? The answer is arguably, “no,” unless we accept

increased friendly casualties, widespread infrastructure

destruction and much higher civilian casualties. Space

capabilities are what allow precision and that is the mandate and expectation of the American people, the government and international opinion on how the U.S. military is to fight. The preparation for future conflicts clearly establishes Space as the cornerstone of the U.S. military’s ability to conduct operations. The Army’s Objective

Force vision demonstrates this reliance by adding information as a fifth component of combat power. Although

the future potential of Space to do more is only limited by

one’s imagination, it is true that today its primary function

is to collect and disseminate information. But information is what infocentric warfare is all about. It is a component that must be employed and integrated into mission operations starting at deployment, used in protecting

the force, incorporated into precision maneuver and fires,

and used as an enabler for situational understanding during all phases of an operation. {Once published, suggest

reading TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-14, The United States

Army Concept for Space Operations in Support of the

Objective Force.} Although not inclusive, that situational awareness requirement includes friendly force disposition, enemy force disposition, detailed targeting, terrestrial environmental analysis, ballistic missile threat warning,

enemy capability and intent analysis, and commanding

and controlling forces at all levels. 

This is not to say that reliance on Space forces is not

fraught with risks. Joint doctrine for Space operations

recognizes that the increased dependence of the U.S. military on Space capabilities can be viewed as vulnerability.

If we see that Space is becoming a center of gravity for

how the United States uses its military, so can our enemies. In developing future operating concepts, vulnerabilities must be taken into consideration, both in the

design and doctrinal employment of these assets.

Its role in both the economic and military instruments

of national power has placed Space on the agenda for

increased analysis and funding to maintain the Space

industry’s economic viability and to push for a significant

leap in the technological capability of future programs.

Although its importance has evolved from the economic

to the military component, the strategic direction of the

use of Space assets is clear. In every conceivable military

scenario, Space plays a vital role in achieving the nation’s

objectives. This reliance is driving the Services to adjust

their doctrine of how we fight and, more importantly, to

adjust their vision of what may be possible in future warfare. 

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

Space vital to achieving 

the nation’s objective

Space is becoming critically important to how

the United States employs several key instruments of

national power. Prior to 1990 among the political,

economic, military and informational instruments of

power, Space exerted its major influence in the economic arena. By the end of the decade, however,

there was a dramatic shift in the way Space capabilities were used as instruments of national military

power. Looking into the future, Space’s role increases exponentially, especially when reviewing the role

it is projected to play in the ongoing transformational efforts within the Department of Defense. 

The transformation of the military will rely on the

increased use of Space capabilities. When future

conflicts take place in areas with little or no infrastructure or in areas with denied access, Space is the

only means by which operations using transformational forces can be employed and pursued. 

Some argue that nonSpace platforms can provide

similar capabilities, but that does not take into consideration every level of conflict. In a forced entry

scenario, air superiority cannot be assured, therefore, airborne platforms would be at too great a risk

to be employed. Space platforms, however, are not

affected by this limitation. To provide needed

requirements to the warfighters, both air and Space

capabilities would need to be integrated. Space

forces allow commanders to consistently succeed in

their ability to operate through every level of conflict

— whether it’s conducting humanitarian assistance,

non-combatant operations, or the various levels of

combat operations.

In every conceivable military scenario, Space

plays a vital role in achieving the nation’s objectives.

This reliance is driving the Services to adjust their

doctrine of how we fight and, more importantly, to

adjust their vision of what may be possible in future

warfare. 
ar is perhaps the ultimate competition — a competition in

which not only the lives of individual men and women are

at stake, but also a competition where the fate of nations

and the future of cherished principles hang in the balance.

As in all competitions, future success depends heavily on the

outcome of a continuous series of smaller, less obvious

competitions. Our experience over the last decade has convinced us that our success in one of those competitions —

providing access to Space-based assets for ground forces —

was a key element in our success on the battlefield. Our

assessment that it will be even more of an essential ingredient in the future has led to the catch phrase: Secure the high

ground.

Our vision of the importance of Space to the Objective

Force is clear.

The Objective Force aims for a quantum leap in strategic and tactical mobility in combination with the lethality

and survivability equivalent to today’s modern heavy force.

In particular, the Objective Force will require tactical communications that support significantly increased data rates

while on the move between highly mobile elements that are

habitually out of line-of-sight with each other. These same

forces will also need increased reach-back for support from

non-organic fires and intelligence. These increased communications must be provided in an austere support environment without significantly burdening either strategic or

tactical mobility. It should be expected that over-the-horizon targeting and situational awareness will be a significant

contributor to Force survivability. For example, the

Objective Force could use maneuver enabled by superior

knowledge of both the friendly and enemy situations in

place of physical armor. In a similar way, the Objective

Force could benefit significantly from engaging targets

before physical line-of-sight obtains.

As we begin to develop the required capabilities for the

Objective Force’s success, it is tempting after our run of

past successes to assume that Space superiority is our

birthright and a fixed reality. But is it? Who is the competition today? What have been the ingredients in our success

to date? Determining the ingredients of our past successes

may give guidance to the future choices we make in providing Space capabilities to the Objective Force. 

Possibility One. No amount of prior planning will ever

replace dumb luck.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, there is an element

of luck in almost every major undertaking even if it is just

having the right people in the right place at the right time.

Two of the most prominent Army Space accomplishments

fall squarely in this category.

The Army Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities

(TENCAP) program has been (and continues to be)

arguably one of the most significant successes of Army

Space. The value added to the Army has been enormous;

the cost has been very small in typical modernization terms

— a few well-placed, dedicated men and women at the

Army Space Program Office who developed a very smart

way of doing business on a shoestring budget. But even the

most ardent supporters of Army TENCAP use the phrase

“picking the low-hanging fruit” to describe this effort.

Those same supporters have been frustrated more than

once when the Army has been reluctant to push hard for a

new capability when faced with the prospect of substantial

new investments. We would all agree that picking the lowhanging fruit is a smart way of doing business, but it then

becomes a matter of chancing that others plant the right

trees.

Another of our noted successes is the global positioning

system (GPS). GPS receivers were indispensable to the

rapid maneuver employed in the featureless desert during

Operation Desert Storm and many would argue that this

was the true origin of the Army’s recognition of the value

of Space support. Again, the availability of the small, lightweight ground receiver was due to a few dedicated men and

women — this time at what was to become Army Space

22 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

We Have It! 

We Like It! 

Can We Keep It? 

W

By Tomás A. Pagán 

Summer Theme

The High Ground

As we begin to develop the required

capabilities for the Objective Force’s

success, it is tempting after our run

of past successes to assume that

Space superiority is our birthright

and a fixed reality. But is it?
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 23

Command — and another shoestring. 

While one should always be prepared to take advantage

of a good break, it is not wise to rely on it if the outcome

is critical to success. Most agree that the whole Army, as

opposed to small pockets within the Army, did not share the

view that Space was critical to success on the battlefield

prior to Desert Storm. Fortunately, neither did our opponents. Winning the competition for Space superiority in

Desert Storm would have required only a small investment

in the right places by our opponents. One reconnaissance

satellite and a few GPS jammers might not have determined

victory, but even that small an investment would have made

it much more difficult for our forces. We were very lucky

that the competition folded.

Possibility Two. The good news is: It is a replay of the

Tortoise and the Hare. The bad news is: This time we are

the Hare!

We should recall that the United States played catch-up

in the first few Space events. In spite of the pioneering

efforts of Robert Goddard, we obtained much of our initial

rocket expertise from the Germans after World War II and

the first satellite and first man in Space were not American,

but Soviet. The Army has always taken some pride in helping rescue the national reputation when, two months after

Sputnik, America’s first orbiting satellite (Explorer 1) was

launched on an Army Redstone rocket after several failures

to launch the Vanguard satellite with the Navy’s

Vanguard rocket. 

And it isn’t over by any means. Although we

may be very comfortable with our current position, it isn’t a one-horse race. The Soviets always

were a competitor in terms of launch capability.

Now the Russians and Chinese both are significant players in the international launch business,

joining Arianespace and the European Space

Agency as real challengers. In spite of the rough

start with Ariane V, we cannot take the international launch dollar as a U.S. possession.

It is very clear now that the Chinese are moving toward

manned Space flight. With the successful recovery of

Shenzhou IV (“Divine Vessel’ IV) after a week in orbit, we

expect a manned launch before the end of the year. In fact,

with the inevitable hold on U.S. manned launches required

by the traumatic loss of the Shuttle Columbia, we may face

a period in which the only two operating manned launch

systems will be the Chinese Shenzhou and the Russian

Soyuz. 

We all recognize that it is harder to hold a lead than it is

to make one up; the bigger the lead, the easier it is to be convinced there really isn’t any competition. The guy in the

back has the advantage of a clearly defined path and a clear

example to emulate — both good and bad. The guy in front

has to make choices about the direction of the road ahead;

choices that are often difficult and controversial.

An old quotable phrase says that making choices is easy;

living with the results of those choices is hard. We are all

too aware today as we face difficult transformation decisions of just how hard modernization is when there is an

existing infrastructure to support. The current state of our

Space assets has those same types of issues. As an example,

most of us were surprised when one of the first of the

Space Architect studies of our Space communications indiBuilding the Space 

support segment

If we are to truly provide the necessary Space

support to the Objective Force, perhaps the

most difficult challenge may come in the synchronization of fielding. ... (we could) experiment with different techniques before deciding

what to build and the quantities that are needed.

The upfront investment is small; the payback is

immediate. If the Objective Force is to truly

rely on Space support for critical battlefield

functions, then we have to be able to define how

we will do that now — while the future combat

system (FCS) is still being created. We have to

be able to build and deploy the Space segment

while the FCS is being developed and deployed.

We have to define the ground equipment in time

for it to be built into the FCS. Otherwise, Space

is always going to be an add-on.

(See High Ground, page 47)
OLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Sandstorms,

heat, insects, worry about the war, personal

hygiene, homesickness ... All these things

affected Army Space soldiers serving in Operation

Iraqi Freedom — just as they affected the troops waging direct war — but, like their infantry brethren,

Army Space soldiers, professionals all, persevered,

and were an essential part of the war effort.

Every element of the

command was fully

engaged, from the Army

Space soldiers working

hand in hand with combatant commanders in

the desert, to the Space

and Missile Defense

Command Operations

Center here tracking

movement of soldiers

and providing reachback support for all

deployed Space teams.

Speaking of deployed

Space teams, a total of

five were deployed and

directly involved in Iraqi

Freedom. Since the

beginning of Operation

Enduring Freedom,

Army Space has

deployed 10 Space support teams to the U.S.

Central Command

region. Teams served in Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, and

elsewhere in the CENTCOM area of operations.

They provided Space capabilities, expertise, and

products in support of theater commanders. 

The teams moved with those combatant commanders, sharing the same dangers and hardships, while

providing up to the minute Space force enhancement,

including satellite communications health and welfare status and analysis; global positioning system

accuracy predictions; strategic and theater ballistic

missile early warning; weather terrain and environmental monitoring awareness; and intelligence,

reconnaissance, and surveillance products.

MAJ Daniel Cockerham, Team Leader of Army

Space Support Team 5, traveled with the Marine

Expeditionary Force 1 as they took Baghdad. Prior to

entering the city, he e-mailed his unit.

“We’re fully integrated with the Marines of the

IMEF, and are treated as family since we’ve been living and operating with them from the beginning. Our

soldiers pull duty with them in addition to performing

our mission. We haven’t had showers in weeks and

are filthy, but, hey, we’re on the outskirts of Baghdad!

We’re all very proud to be part of this effort,” said

Cockerham.

A Joint Tactical

Ground Station

— which provides

direct downlinked, in-theater,

early warning of

missile launches

— was deployed

to the Central

Command

region. Together

with its European

based sister units,

the JTAGS provided an encompassing, 24 hour

continuous intheater processing of missile

alerting and early

warning on tactical ballistic missiles and other

infrared events.

The JTAGS monitored infrared signatures coming

from hot spots within Iraq to provide critical information to maneuver commanders regarding the timing

and operational employment of their units. 

One specific incident illustrates the value of early

warning. JTAGS operators presented early warning of

hostile aircraft approaching a Predator surveillance

mission. Thanks to the timely warning, commanders

were able to divert the mission, thereby averting

potential loss of the vehicle, and maintaining the

secrecy of the mission.

LTC Scott Netherland, 1st Space Bn. commander,

commented “Many people consider the first Gulf War

as the first Space war. Our ability to exploit Space

capabilities for communications, navigation, and precision guided munitions, detection of relevant

24 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Army Space on Target in Iraqi Freedom with 

Command-wide Effort

Tip of the ‘Sphere’

C

By MAJLaura Kenney

SGT Sabrina Bannister of the 1st Space Battalion’s Army Space Support

Team 5 stands in front of a sign near the border of Iraq. Bannister’s team

deployed to support the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during Operation Iraqi

Freedom. Photo courtesy of Combat Camera
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 25

infrared events, imagery products, blue force tracking,

and weather all give the U.S. warfighter a tremendous

advantage over our adversaries. Our experiences with

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi

Freedom have revalidated the need to continue close

integration of Space forces and capabilities with the

warfighter. 

The Spectral Operations Resource Center was also a

key player. An element of the SORC was forward

deployed to CENTCOM, and in tandem with home

base, produced more than 300 products in support of

Iraqi Freedom. 

The SORC (Forward) produced imagery that provided spectral analysis of vegetative areas and rugged

terrain to eliminate unsuitable sites for airborne

assault operations during the planning process.

Standard image maps were created to conduct standard mission planning.

Working in tandem with ARSSTs, SORC rear and

forward provided detailed change detection assessments to identify potential enemy locations. Archived

satellite imagery was merged with more recent spectral

imagery to identify changes. The noted changes were

passed on to combatant commanders, identifying

potential hidden enemy assets, and assisting in the targeting process. The technology also assisted with

locating enemy mine fields. 

Bo Dunaway, chief, Remote Sensing Branch, said,

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to put all the

pieces together and deliver spectral products from start

to finish in a timely relevant manner. From units forward requesting products to downlinking unclassified

imagery via Eagle Vision I and delivering digital products within 24 hours is a significant milestone for the

commercial imagery arena. The use of SORC

(Forward) ensured continuity and mission focus for all

Army Space elements using commercial imagery products.” 

Another vital piece of the Army Space effort could

be found in the 1st Satellite Control Battalion.

Although not forward deployed, the SATCON companies were as integral a part of Iraqi Freedom as their

desert-located sister units. 

The 1st SATCON supported the ground units

involved in Iraqi Freedom since they first entered theater. SATCON units enabled satellite communications,

connectivity, voice, and video teleconference capability

to the combatant commanders of CENTCOM, V Corps,

3rd Infantry Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force,

Special Operations Command, and other deployed forces.

The two primary units involved in this support were B

Co., Fort Meade, Va., and C Co., Landstuhl, Germany. They

controlled the satellite links for tactical and strategic

warfighter communications networks.

Together, they supported more than 140 terminals and

ETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. — 

Historical. That was the overarching feeling as

Army Space Command formally bade farewell to

its latest Army Space Support Team, commonly

referred to as an ARSST, during a departure ceremony March 31. 

ARSSTs allow today’s warfighters to accomplish

their missions using Space-based assets. Capabilities

are enhanced by satellites such as: communications;

position, navigation, and timing; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; weather, terrain, and environmental monitoring; and missile warning. 

“All that is happening right now in the Southwest

Asia area of operations in Afghanistan and Kuwait,”

said BG Richard V. Geraci, deputy commanding general for Army Space Command. 

Unlike every other team that is supporting the

warfighter, this team went to support the humanitarian aid and reconstruction of Iraq after the war. The

Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian

Assistance (ORHA) will work the relationships with

all those involved in the humanitarian and reconstruction activities: the United Nations, nongovernmental

agencies and various expatriate Iraqi groups. Team

ORHA will provide Space expertise and access to

Space assets to help bring peace and stability to the

Iraqi people.

“We truly are an ‘Army of One,’” remarked MAJ

Richard Brence, ARSST ORHA team leader. “Half of

us are mobilized National Guard and half regular

Army but you couldn’t ask for a better team makeup.”

Since early January the team trained together six

days a week and were certified fully mission capable.

Right away they were providing Space-based products

on a twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week

schedule. 

“This really helped me learn my mission,” said

CPT Mike Daniels, the team’s intelligence officer.

“We put into real life what we’ve learned in the classroom. Our customer liked what we did and they

asked for more,” he added.

This team and mission truly are blazing new

ground for Army Space Command.

Army Space Support

Team prepares for

Post-war Iraq

P

By LTC Michael Yowell

(See Army Space on Target, page 46)

LTC Michael Yowell is a mobilized Colorado National Guardsman currently serving as the

Commander of the 193rd Space Battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He

served ten years Active Duty as a Field Artillery Officer in Alaska and Okla., and as a Public

Affairs Officer in Germany. As a full-time Colorado Guardsman he has served in several

assignments prior to his selection as the battalion's first commander in June 2001.
ETERSON AIR FORCE

BASE, Colo. — A significant

milestone in the history of

Army Space Command took place

April 11, with the activation of the

1st Space Brigade (Provisional) in a

ceremony held at the Command

headquarters here.

The ceremony marked the creation of the Army's first and only

Space Brigade.

Currently, elements of the

Brigade’s three battalions are

deployed in Iraq and the surrounding theater in support of Marine

Expeditionary Force 1, V Corps,

and Central Command.

“This activation represents a

huge step forward in the normalization of Space,” said LTG Joseph M.

Cosumano, Jr., commanding general, U.S. Space and Missile Defense

Command. “And what better time

to do it, than during these historic

times we find ourselves in, with

Army Space forces deployed on critical missions, supporting the

warfighters of Iraqi Freedom.

“The new 1st Space Brigade

(Provisional) is the first and only Space Brigade in the

Army. Army Space Command just marked its 15th

birthday, although the history of the Army in Space is

much longer than that. We’ve postponed celebrating

that anniversary while our soldiers are in harm’s way,

but, this is still a great time to stand up the new

brigade.”

The ceremony began with the symbolic uncasing

and unfurling of the Army field flag, marking the

activation of a provisional unit. Colors for the 1st

Space Brigade will be authorized once the brigade’s

status is made permanent. The Army field flag was

then posted in the waiting empty stand, already

flanked by the Army Space Command and three battalion flags. Then, while the official activation orders

were read, Cosumano passed the formal, framed copy

of the order to the Brigade Commander, COL David

Shaffer.

The mission of the 1st Space Brigade, as detailed

in the order, is to “conduct continuous, global Space

support, Space control and Space force enhancement

operations in support of U.S. Strategic Command

and Supported Combatant Commanders enabling

the delivery of decisive combat power.”

Army Space Command officially came into being

April 7, 1988. Its three battalions — the 1st Satellite

Control Battalion, the 1st Space Bn., and the 193rd

Space Bn., Colorado National Guard — provide satellite communications, force enhancement, and early

missile warning to the warfighter. 

Shaffer insisted that the honors of the day

belonged not to him, as first commander of the first

ever Space Brigade, but to that brigade’s deployed

soldiers, whom he and Brigade CSM Reginald

Ficklin could only represent.

“Our soldiers are over there, as we speak, doing

tremendous things. This ceremony is for them, as

they sweat and work around the clock, helping the

combatant commanders achieve the spectacular success they have,” said Shaffer.

26 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

P

Ceremony Marks Activation of 1st Space Brigade

(Provisional)

Tip of the ‘Sphere’

Above, COL David Shaffer, left, is charged with command of the 1st Space Brigade

(Provisional) by U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command Commanding

General, LTG Joseph M. Cosumano Jr. at the brigade’s activation ceremony April 11.

Observing the momentous event is CSM Reginald Ficklin, the command sergeant

major of the brigade. 

Opposite page, top, COL David Shaffer addresses the attendees at the activation

ceremony of the 1st Space Brigade (Provisional).

Opposite page, bottom, LTG Joseph M. Cosumano Jr. and COL David Shaffer raise

a saber as they prepare to cut the ceremonial cake during the reception to celebrate

the brigade’s activation. Photos by Dennis Plummer

By MAJLaura Kenney
27

Cosumano extended a special welcome to another

general officer attending the event, Air Force MG

Mason C. Whitney, adjutant general for Colorado’s

Army and Air National Guard.

“We couldn’t be doing the tremendous job we’re doing, supporting the

warfighter in current operations,

without his people. Case in

point, the 193rd Space

Battalion, activated just

before Sept. 11. What a

great asset they have

been. They, as well

as their sister battalions, have

been doing a

magnificent job in

supporting

the warfighter,

wherever he is

deployed.

He continued, “It’s

taken us 15 long years to

get here, and I for one appreciate the symbolism of having this ceremony here in our

new building. We have former commanders present,

who represent the blood,

sweat, and tears it took to get

us to this point, as we celebrate quietly, while our

nation is at war. 

“And make no mistake,

we are a crucial part of that

war effort. We’ve got Army

Space Support Teams and

Joint Tactical Ground

Station sections, and a host

of other elements providing communications, early

missile warning — everything we have in terms of

operational capability is involved in current operations.

“In Operation Desert Storm, we’d just begun offering the benefits of the Global Positioning System.

Today, we’re providing force enhancement and force

protection. We’ve come a long way in 15 years, and the

stand-up of this brigade today is an indicator of all the

challenges we’ll meet in the future,” concluded

Cosumano.

Shaffer addressed those future challenges.

“Today’s activation as a provisional unit is a major

step in the process to becoming a permanent Army

unit. The great thing about today is that it opens the

door to expansion. By increasing the size of the

brigade, we increase the support we give to the

warfighter. This ceremony, unlike that of a change of

command which is all about welcoming a new commander and saying farewell to the outgoing, this ceremony is about the unit, about its soldiers, past, present

and future,” said Shaffer.

The present day commander of the 1st Space Bn.,

LTC Scott Netherland, has been in Army Space

Command for much of its lifespan. As a captain in

Operations Desert Shield and Storm, he demonstrated

the benefits of the Global Positioning System to that

conflict’s warfighters.

“GPS got our foot in the door, showing

what Space had to offer. We’ve come a long

long way since then. Today’s brigade activation marks the increase of our investment in Space — and it’s a great day for

Army Space Command and the warfighter,”

said Netherland.

Another

long time member of the command, John

Marrs, director

of Technical

Support, said,

“I’ve been with

the command

since 1990. The

command has

grown to its

present size and

mission completely in keeping with the

vision held at its

inception, that

of providing

the best Space

has to offer the warfighter. Standing up the brigade will

allow us to continue doing that, and growth is necessary to meet the increasing demand for Space capabilities. It’s a fabulous day for Army Space.”

The ceremony ended with a ritual cutting of a celebratory cake with a saber held jointly by Cosumano and

Shaffer.

Under Army Regulation, a provisional unit may be

organized and designated by the commander of an

Army field command. Provisional units may be organized for a limited period of time, not to exceed two

years. At the end of the two-year period, the commander will make a recommendation whether or not to

permanently organize the unit.

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal
MAN — “GO ARMY AIR FORCE!!!!”

That was the cheer of the interservice team

during the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing’s

first Fireman’s Challenge in the Sultanate of Oman.

On a sunny 90-degree Sunday afternoon, three members of the Army Space Command’s Test and

Evaluation unit joined with three Air Force Medical

Group members for a series of challenging events.

Team composition was simple, a six-person team

with at least one female member. While eight other

Air Force teams were formed five men to one woman,

the Army-Air Force went fifty-fifty.

Air Force Capt. Alicia Wright, a Life Skills social

worker with the base Medical Group, spearheaded

the team’s true equal flavor and recruitment. Staff

Sgt. Melissa Buss and Senior Airman Heather

Shields were with Wright on the same flight to the

base in January and quickly joined her. Their challenge came when balancing the team makeup.

“We went to this event with the sole intention of

having a good time instead of being hell-bent on

winning,” said Wright. “We didn’t even know what

we were going to do beforehand other than the

requirement to be able to carry a 125-pound dummy.”

Having recently arrived, Wright saw the Army Space

soldiers and decided to ask them to join in. “Most

people do not even realize that there are Army soldiers on base,” added Buss.

Being on a base of nearly 2,000 airman makes the

six soldiers from the 193rd Space Battalion, Colorado

Army National Guard, quite invisible but 2LT Keith

Woodburn, SSG Kent Brandsted and SGT Michael

28 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Fireman's Challenge in Oman pairs up Army

Space with Air Force

Tip of the ‘Sphere’

O

Above, 2LT Keith Woodburn, of the 193rd Space Battalion goes for the gusto during the Fireman's Competition held in the Sultanate of

Oman. Woodburn, dressed in helmet and a life pack, is saddled with 50 feet of S-rolled hose on his shoulder while dragging another

250 feet of hose as he is cheered on by teammates Senior Airman Heather Shields and fellow Space soldier, SSG Kent Brandsted. 

Opposite page, top, Cheered on by Senior Airman Heather Shields (in Army tee-shirt) — 2LT Keith Woodburn pounds a railroad tie three

feet with his sledgehammer. Team Army-Air Force poses with their prizes after finishing in fourth place out of nine teams that competed in the Fireman’s Challenge. Army Space Command Photos

By LTC Michael Yowell
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 29

Hurley eagerly accepted Wright’s offer. Each member had to compete in two events during the challenge

and all six had to take part in the last event. In true

team spirit, all Air Force members sported Army Tshirts.

Starting off the six events, Hurley had to race a

three-inch fully charged fire hose 100 feet, then shoot

water through a window until the bucket inside filled

— striving for the speediest completion time. Buss

then took her turn with the best of the two times

counting for the team. “The hose knocked the

wind out of me as soon as I turned it on. I’m

glad that someone from base fire was standing behind me,” said Buss. The team

started off well with the best time of all

the teams.

Having watched the other teams

in the first event, team “ArmyAir Force” strategized that the

key to the Fireman’s

Challenge was not so

much speed and agility

but rather thinking

about what you

were doing

before doing

it. With that

in mind — and

no rest breaks

between events —

they started off on the

second event of rolling

out three 50-foot sections

of hose and connecting them

before the entire team had to

race to the end to shout “Fighting

Fire” three times. They then had to

reverse the process by dropping the

hose, disconnecting it, and s-rolling the

hose before dashing across the finish line.

Dressed in a fireman’s helmet and bunker

gear, Woodburn negotiated a traffic cone course

with 50 feet of hose on his shoulder before dragging a roped truck tire 50 feet. Lastly he used a

sledgehammer to drive a railroad tie three feet.

Tagging his similarly dressed partner, Brandsted

dragged a fire hose and had to shoot at two windows

— filling two buckets — before hefting a 125-pound

dummy and carrying it 100 feet.

Following the combined event, Hurley had to move

a dummy 50 feet, drop it and drag another dummy

back before tagging Buss to repeat the process.

One of the hardest events found Woodburn

dressed again in helmet and a life pack, saddled with

50 feet of s-rolled hose on his shoulder and dragging

another 250 feet of hose all the way until it was fully

stretched. Then Woodburn had to run it back while

Wright and Shields s-rolled the hose back up.

Finally the entire team raced with canvas buckets

to douse a roof designed to drain into a 55-gallon

drum. 

The team quickly realized that it had to pace

the water flow onto the roof since too much at

once would overshoot the drain and waste time.

Quickly they had it filled to the second ring

on the barrel, and their challenge was complete.

“It was hard work,” reflected

Woodburn. “It was a good thing to

break up the monotony of the

day-in day-out work schedule

here.”

Competition was very

tight throughout the

challenge and team

“Army-Air Force”

took fourth

place. Prizes

for the team

included

405th AEW

T-shirts, mugs,

coffee cups and

key lanyards. The

Fireman’s Challenge

was so popular that it will

be a monthly base event.

No doubt Team Army-Air

Force will aim to improve its

standing.
30 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Tip of the ‘Sphere’

OLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — “Hooah” is

written all over the faces of PFC Corey Wilson,

SPC Chad Duncan, and SPC Daniel Alvarez,

soldiers from the 1st Satellite Control Battalion.

These fine soldiers didn’t wait for the call or the “heyyou roster,” instead, they volunteered to deploy in

support of their sister battalion, the 1st Space

Battalion. 

Alvarez, from SATCON Battalion’s Delta

Company, left in March

to join the Test and

Evaluation Unit

deployed to Oman. A

co-worker, SPC Jarrod

Mantz, said about him,

“He is dedicated to

what he does and

always tries to better

himself at everything,

and this deployment is

just another example of

that can-do attitude.”

Wilson, Alpha

Company, and Duncan,

Bravo Company,

trained with Army

Space Support Team

(ARSST) 14 for several

weeks before leaving.

Duncan deployed with

Team 14, and Wilson

went to Bagram Air

Base in Afghanistan to

plus up Team 3 already on the ground. The three

young soldiers heard of the need for volunteers

through their respective chains of command and

jumped at the opportunity.

“It really came down to whoever was working that

day,” said Duncan who is a native of Colorado.

“They asked ‘who wants to leave on Monday?’ That

was on Thursday afternoon. 

“We were told, ‘You won’t know where you’re

going. You won’t know what you’re doing. You won’t

know whom you’re going to be with. You won’t know

how long you will be gone.’”

Such uncertainties might leave others less eager

to volunteer, but not Duncan and Wilson.

“It excited me. To switch battalions, get assigned

to 1st Space, learn a completely different job, that’s

really a once in a lifetime thing. I’ve never heard of

anyone ever doing it,” said Duncan.

“Getting to go do something like this — getting a

combat patch when he’s an E3 and I’m an E4 — that

just doesn’t happen. It doesn’t ever happen and

being on a team with three officers right now is not

something many

guys in our shoes

get to do.”

Wilson — originally from Arizona

— had just arrived

at the Operations

Center at Fort

Meade, Md. when

the need for volunteers arose.

“My first sergeant

and company commander brought it

up to me and asked

me if I wanted to

go. I came into the

Army with pretty

much the same

intentions and goals

as SPC Duncan.

Ready to learn,

ready to go and do

Army things. To do

things soldiers do,”

said Wilson. 

“I’ve been in the Army for three years, straight out

of high school. I did my basic training at Fort Knox,

Ky., Advanced Individual Training at Fort Gordon,

Ga., went to Korea for one year, and came back to do

the Satellite Network 1 Charlie course. Like I said,

I’m new to the Operation Center and jumped at the

chance to go.”

Army Space Support Company 1SG Scott Ballard

remarked on the challenges Wilson and Duncan

endured in preparation for their deployment.

“They arrived March 3 for a six-and-a-half week

training process which includes two situational training exercises. Then, in addition to all the certification training for team support, they have had to step

SATCON Volunteers give Boost to 

Sister Battalion 

C

Above, PFC Corey Wilson and SPC Chad Duncan of 1st Satellite Control

Battalion train-up for their volunteer deployments with their sister battalion, the

1st Space Battalion. Photo by Sharon L. Hartman 

Opposite page, top, although he deployed with the 1st Space Battalion, SPC

Daniel Alvarez holds up a 1st Satellite Control Battalion banner showing his

allegiance to his unit. Photo by SFC Robert Kelley. 

Opposite page, bottom, SPC Chad Duncan, far left, one of three volunteer soldiers from the 1st Satellite Control Battalion poses with members of his temporary Army Space Support Team. Photos, U.S. Army Space &Missile Defense Command

By Sharon L. Hartman
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 31

up to the plate and be prepared with weapons qualifications and NBC training. 

“They’ve been really training to work the imagery

aspect of being team members. They are learning

hardware and software maintenance as well as

actually utilizing the different image products and getting them ready to provide to

the supported units.

“Duncan was also a combat lifesaver but his certification had

lapsed so we had to send him to

a re-certification course. He

has already put together

his combat lifesaver bag,

and all the other stuff

he needs for that,”

said Ballard.

“I’m glad

to have them.

They are taking

on the responsibilities of an

NCOIC for the team as

an E3 and E4. They have

proven to be a great asset to

our effort.” 

Although they are leaving the

1st SATCON Battalion, their move

is not permanent.

“It’s a 179-day tour and they will be

coming back to us after they are done

there,” said MSG Javier Montero, 1st

SATCON’s operations NCOIC. “We pulled

them out of the Operation Centers so they could

supplement the ARSST teams the command

were putting together to support Central

Command.

“As far as our mission is concerned, the

Satellite Control companies will miss them, but

we’ll carry on. We have enough folks to cover

the workload.” 

But, for these young men, this truly unique

opportunity puts them closer to the line of fire

than soldiers in their military occupation specialty

have ever been in. When asked if there was any anxiety about going into the field, both replied with an

immediate “no.”

“There’s the inherent amount of fear that always

comes with getting ready to go someplace you’ve

never been before,” said Duncan.

“I’ve never left the country before. Wilson has

been to Korea, so he’s been abroad, he’s been a foreigner, so he knows a little about that, but I think we

are probably the most anxious people in the state

right now. We’re ready to rock and roll and we have a

lot of support from our families.

“I called my mom one week from Maryland, and

told her everything was fine, then two days later, I tell

her I’m coming home for a few weeks to do some

training and then I’m deploying to who knows where.

It was kind of a system shock, but they know it’s what

I want to do and they fully support me.”

The overwhelming understanding and support

though, comes from the fact that both men were

reared from families with military backgrounds.

Duncan’s father was an Air Force Vietnam veteran and Wilson has family members who span

the various military branches.

“My uncle is retired Air Force, I have

a cousin currently serving in the Air

Force, another cousin in the Marine

Corps and my sister is planning to

go into the Navy following after

me in service to our nation,”

said Wilson.

Everyone serving in today’s military all-volunteer

force is, by definition, serving of their own free will,

and thus a volunteer. The three soldiers now

deployed to dangerous areas of the world have taken

that one step further, to the benefit of their unit and

their country.

Sharon L. Hartman, is a DoD contractor with COLSA Corporation, and has

served in the Army Space &Missile Defense Command Colorado Springs

Public Affairs Office for three and a half years. She is a computer graphics

designer, journalist, and photographer, and is the graphics editor for the Army

Space Journal. 
Tip of the ‘Sphere’

32 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

OLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Sunrise found

the soldiers hiking a trail, a slight breeze cooling the sweat on their brows. Moving up

the hill in teams of four and five, their NCOs

pushing them to haul their 40-pound packs

just a little faster, the soldiers gave it their

all. The goal they strove for was more

than just making the top of the hill —

the real prize was the honor of

being known as “Best Crew.”

In the second quarter of

2003, the 1st Satellite Control

Battalion received a tasking from higher headquarters requiring a

Best Crew competition.

Members of

Headquarters and

Head-quarters Company, 1st SATCON Bn.

took this to heart and executed a comprehensive

competition called the

“Soul Survivor Challenge”

involving leadership skills,

and operational and common task training.

The Best Crew competition for HHC consisted of

five events: an operational

crew certification, ruck

march, global positioning

system road rally, obstacle

course, Jeopardy! game,

Class A inspection, and

scores from the most recent

Army physical fitness test

and M16/M9 Ranges. This

evaluation allowed a variety

of events, thoroughly testing the soldierly abilities of

the three crews vying for top honors.

The operational crew certification is a weeklong

evaluation of a crew’s ability to accomplish a variety

of crew tasks. The tasks required a range of skills

from operation of one of the operational subsystems

to deployment to off-site locations. This particular

week constitutes the operational meat of the best

crew competition, and is similar to what the crews

will experience during the annual Battalion

Command Inspection and Evaluation Program

(CIEP).

SGT Robert Smedley, contestant, said

the operational certification of crews

“validates our training efforts from

throughout the year, and enhances

our teams communication as a

necessary element of certification. Teamwork is absolutely necessary to get certified as a crew.” 

The ruck march,

held on Fort

Carson, challenged the soldiers to an eightmile course with

40-pound packs. The

personal best of

every soldier was all

that could be

demanded, and the

troops of HHC

responded with a

hearty effort and a

close finish. 

Wearing a pack

nearly half her own

weight, SPC Jennifer Swift said, “The

teamwork was the

most important

part of the event.

The march was

physically challenging, and we had to

motivate each other

to finish.” 

The GPS road

rally was a test in

navigation and Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver

(PLGR) use skills. Each crew was given a PLGR and

a list of 10-digit grid coordinates for points around

Colorado Springs. The teams had three hours to go

out and find the points — with the team locating the

most points winning.

C

During HHC, 1st SATCON’s Best Crew competition, SSG Nathan Daniell and

SSG Steven Cato (above left) take part in the rucksack march and contestants

SPC Chaun Frink and SGT Keith Barnhart (above l-r) attempt to cross a rope

obstacle. Photo by CW2 Garth Hahn

Soul Survivor Challenge met 

by SATCON Soldiers 

By CW2 Garth Hahn

(See Soul Survivor, page 55)
Family Readiness Group Buttressing

Space Battalion Warriors

By SPC Aaron Evans & Sharon L. Hartman

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Of paramount importance to our soldiers abroad is the need for contact with

those they hold dear back on the home front. There’s a

good percentage of the population

that, in the spirit of patriotism, wish

to support our soldiers by mailing

care packages and letters of

encouragement to them to uphold

their morale. 

With many soldiers from the 1st

Space Battalion deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom,

the battalion’s Family Readiness

Group (FRG) held a meeting to discuss ways in which they could continue to support the soldiers from

afar, and their families close by.

“We conduct monthly battalion

FRG meetings, and provide childcare to allow maximum participation,” said Bettina Bailem, wife of

the battalion CSM Lester Bailem. 

“During our last meeting, we

elected to take part in a bratwurst

lunch fund-raiser and use the

monies raised to finance a massive

care package that would be distributed amongst the various deployed teams.

“We also provided materials at the meeting for the

children to make homemade Easter cards for the soldiers,

and family members from Army Space Support Team 1

put together Easter goody bags for all of the teams.”

The luncheon brought in $470 and helped offset the

cost of the fundraiser, as well as allowed the FRG to purchase items for the care package such as coffee, lip balm,

wet wipes, soap and other necessities. 

Due primarily to security issues and the delayed mailing system, supporting soldiers via mail has become

increasingly difficult. 

“Packages can only be sent to an individual soldier, so

we are sending it to one person and they will distribute it

to the other members of the teams,” said Jackie

Netherland, wife of the battalion commander LTC Scott

Netherland.

In addition to supporting the deployed soldiers with

the care packages, the FRG additionally accepted the

responsibility to show that same support for the family

members left behind.

“We were also able to set some money aside for our

Easter egg hunt,” added Mrs. Bailem.

“On Easter Sunday we conducted an Easter egg hunt

for the children at the park on Peterson Air Force Base.

We wanted to still be able to get the families together and

do this for the children because many of them have a parent that is deployed.”

While the traditional letter or

package has been the modus

operandi for as long as many people can recollect, there has also

been the mass mailings (i.e. form

letter campaigns) to soldiers that

show them that civilians at home

support their efforts. 

But, with the heightened concern for security, the U.S. Postal

Service put firm restrictions on

mailings to soldiers overseas. 

Fortunately, a number of

organizations have offered alternatives so that the flow of support

can continue at a steady pace. 

Operation Dear Abby began as

a way for individuals to send messages via e-mail to personnel. The

message can be anything from a

holiday greeting, to a message

stating how important their job is

to the future of our nation. Individuals with Internet

access can send messages to service members by accessing www.OperationDearAbbey.net. 

Other avenues one might explore would be donating

a calling card, signing on to a virtual thank you card;

sending personal messages through the “Stars and

Stripes” overseas newspaper, or simply making a donation to relief agencies like the Red Cross, Army

Emergency Relief, or Air Force Aid Society. 

These are simply a few of the many ways in which we

at home can continue to show our personnel abroad that

they are remembered and cared for. 

Army Space Forces Inaugurates

Quarterly Prayer Breakfast

By Sharon L. Hartman

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. — With times as

they are in the world — many servicemen and servicewomen fighting a dangerous and unpredictable war far

from home — timing was impeccable for the 1st Space

COMMAND in BRIEF

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 33

SFC Edward Breeden and SGT Richard Provinzano

of the 1st Space Battalion put together care packages to be sent to members of the various teams

from the battalion that are deployed in support of

Iraqi Freedom. Photo by Sharon L. Hartman
34 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Brigade’s first quarterly prayer breakfast. The event,

planned well before the outbreak of the war, allowed

attendees from the brigade and Army Space Command,

time to reflect and to pray for the situation that has put

many of their own in harm’s way.

Hosted by the 1st Satellite Control Battalion’s

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, the inaugural

event was conducted in Army Space Command’s new

headquarters building on Peterson Air Force Base, and

commenced appropriately with the invocation, given by

the command’s chaplain, MAJ Allen M. Stahl from Fort

Carson. 

LTC Mearen Bethea, the battalion commander, followed by providing a bit of history regarding the purpose

behind the occasion. 

“The first prayer breakfast was held in 1953 by

President Dwight D. Eisenhower to encourage

Americans to seek divine guidance for national leadership

and proclaim their dependence on God and faith in

Him.”

Bethea then introduced the guest speaker, COL John

Bauer, post chaplain for Fort Carson, who proceeded to

speak on what the word SOLDIER really represents.

“‘S’ stands for Selfless service,” began Bauer.

“The word ‘Self’ yields other words, selfishness, selfcenteredness, but it is a mark of maturity that, as we grow

older, we begin to reach beyond ourselves.”

Bauer then followed with examples of the other letters

of the acronym, “Obedience, Loyalty, Discipline,

Integrity, Empathy and Religious faith.”

As Bauer continued, participants enjoyed an array of

food, from homespun pancakes and eggs to biscuits with

gravy, all prepared by the soldiers and families of HHC

1st SATCON Battalion. 

SSG John Ciesiolka, NCOIC of the team that coordinated the breakfast, commented on the dedication of the

soldiers and families of the battalion:

“Some of the wives pre-cooked muffins and other

baked items. I also had soldiers come in the evening

before to help set-up, then they were in the next day at

6:30 in the morning on their days off from shift work to

start cooking, and remained after to clean up.”

COL David Shaffer, commander of the 1st Space

Brigade, noted that this event was proof positive that the

newly formed brigade was making great strides into

becoming a fully functional brigade.

“I thought it was really great. It was our very first

effort and I thought it went really, really well,” Shaffer

said.

“I’ve been around the Army for a long time and know

that this is something that should be done as a brigade,

and I think it is just one more step in progressing toward

becoming a fully operational brigade.

“We had a good turnout, and a great speaker who had

very inspirational words. It was also very opportune that

we had a chance to do this prayer breakfast as the real

world operations were kicking off. We can’t take credit

for the timing as it was not planned, but it was good to try

to take a moment and put everything that is going on

around the world into perspective.”

To end the breakfast, participants joined in singing

“God Bless America” and “The Army Song” prior to

Stahl giving the benediction. Many attendees also

brought their families to the event to show their support

and faith in prayer.

“Coming from a Christian upbringing, it was nice to

have something like this going on while my mother was

here visiting because she was able to attend and see that

the Army really does take Christianity into consideration,” said SSG Megan Fowler, battalion training NCO

for the 1st SATCON Battalion.

Team Army Space Marches for the

Tiniest Soldier

By Sharon L. Hartman

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — What began as two

ladies desiring an outing with their children, quickly

turned into 17 command members and their families

teaming up for the smallest member of the ranks.

Anjoleen Baca, electronics engineer and Cassandra

Shigley, a telecomm specialist with the Wideband

Gapfiller Satellite - SATCOM System Expert section of

the G-6, had decided to participate in the March of

Dimes annual WalkAmerica as a chance to do something

together with their children. They had just decided to

invite other members of their section when LTC Robert

King, the command chief of Operations Division, asked

them if they would open it up to the entire command, and

coordinate a team effort.

Baca, a volunteer with the Ronald McDonald house,

and no stranger to charity fund-raising, took on the mission.

“The March of Dimes is an organization that focuses

on prenatal, premature and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

(NICU) programs. As a team, we needed to sponsor an

Ambassador Family,” said Baca.

“We looked first within the command to see if we

could sponsor one of our own as our Ambassador family.

Unfortunately, in the only one that we could find, the

father was deployed, so the family had left the area to be

with other family members.

“Since I volunteer with the Ronald McDonald House,

I knew we would be able to find a family there, and that

is how we found our Ambassador family, the Umdens.”

The Umden baby thus became that smallest member

mentioned.

After an emergency Caesarian section, William

Umden was born nine-weeks early to Emily and Gerry

Umden of Pueblo, Colo. He was taken to Memorial

Hospital in Colorado Springs where he stayed for nearly a

month in the NICU. 

Unable to make the daily drive while recuperating

from the Caesarian section and unsure of how to afford
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 35

the expense of staying in Colorado Springs, the Umden’s

turned to the Ronald McDonald House, and that’s where

Baca found them.

With the Ambassador family selected, Baca started

the process of recruiting members of the command to

participate. Each participant had to find people who

would sponsor him or her with a donation. In addition to

that, Baca sold candy bars and extra team ARSPACE Tshirts to be added to the overall donation.

“We had never done this before, so we didn’t know

what to expect, but set a goal of 10 walkers and $1,000,”

said Baca.

“I was also informed, that in the 33 years they have

done the walk in Colorado

Springs, this is the first year

that the Army has had a

team.”

In the end, 17 walkers,

both soldiers and civilians,

plus many family members,

took on the challenge of

either the 2.5 mile or the 5

mile walk with the Army

Space Headquarters and

Headquarters Company

guide leading the way. 

A total of $1,144 was

raised for the March of

Dimes.

Unfortunately, little William and his parents were

unable to make it to the walk, because William ended up

back in the hospital the night before with a fever. 

On a good note, the littlest “soldier” was only battling

a new tooth this time, but the money raised by the Army

Space team will assist him in the bigger battles he has yet

to face.

SATCON soldiers take temp jobs at

DISA-EUR

By SSG Franklin Barrett

LANDSTUHL, Germany — In an effort to improve

Space-based communications support for Operation

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, C

Company, 1st Satellite Control Battalion, Landstuhl,

Germany, recently assigned its Satellite Network Control

NCO and a soldier to temporary positions at the Defense

Information Systems Agency-Europe Headquarters in

Stuttgart, Germany. SGT Jeremy Landuyt and SPC

Shawn Michaud started the 90-day temporary duty on

April 1. They have been working side-by-side with U.S.

Navy and other Army personnel permanently assigned to

the Regional Network Operations Security Center

(RNOSC).

The RNOSC plays a large role in communications

support for the European and Middle-Eastern Theaters

of Operations. A major element in the overall mission of

the RNOSC is Space-based communications, or satellite

communications, and this is precisely where Landuyt and

Michaud provide their support and knowledge.

On a day-to-day basis, the RNOSCs from all Theaters

of Operations (continental U.S., Europe, and Pacific)

work together with the Defense Satellite Communications

System Operations Centers (DSCSOCs) in coordinating,

managing, monitoring, and maintaining the satellite

communications network known as DSCS. C Co., 1st

SATCON, is the DSCSOC for the European, Middle

Eastern, and Indian Ocean theaters. The DSCSOC at

Landstuhl and the RNOSC at Stuttgart work together to

maintain a constantly updated database for all the DSCS

satellite networks in the

region. These databases

are highly dynamic and the

accuracy of the information contained within them

is imperative.

The role that

Landuyt and Michaud play

at the RNOSC mirrors the

database management role

at the DSCSOC itself.

Most of the personnel

assigned to the RNOSC

are not as proficient at utilizing the DSCS Network

Planning Software (DNPS)

as the soldiers and NCOs assigned to the DSCSOCs.

DNPS is the tool that the network planners at the

RNOSC and the Regional Space Support Centers

(RSSCs) utilize to develop and maintain the databases

associated with DSCS. DNPS is also utilized by the

DSCSOCs to configure their network monitoring tools

according to the databases provided by the RNOSCs.

While on duty, Landuyt and Michaud assist the RNOSC

personnel in creating new databases, updating existing

databases, and disseminating databases as necessary.

The unique opportunity has enabled these satellite

network controllers to gain a new perspective on how

their normal day-to-day business at the DSCSOC fits into

the broad spectrum of satellite communications.

Landuyt said, “I think it is something that all the NCOs

in the 1st SATCON should be given a chance to do. It

gives you a better understanding of the big picture.”

That “big picture” is often overlooked in world

media. Most notable news sources reporting from the

front lines are showing the world the challenges faced by

the war fighters, leaving the public to overlook the importance of our support units, especially communications.

For these two 1st SATCON soldiers, the importance

of communications, primarily Space-based communications, is not overlooked. Landuyt and Michaud serve as

part of the voice of command that still sounds off in the

deserts of the Middle East, and around the world.

Soldiers, civilians and family members of Army Space Command pose for

a team photo under the WalkAmerica Banner for the March of Dimes

fund-raising event. Monies raised by the team went to help a child who

was born prematurely. Photo courtesy of March of Dimes
ver the past three decades, satellite systems have been

developed into vital combat enablers of the Army’s

warfighting capability. Occupying the “high ground of

Space,” satellites now provide unprecedented “battlespace awareness” that helps reduce the “fog, friction, and

uncertainty of warfare.” Space has, indeed, changed the

way military force is applied and created opportunities to

redefine the Army’s role in developing its uses.

Space capabilities are a cornerstone of the Army’s

Transformation Force. Critical operations such as communications, imagery, reconnaissance, navigation, and

warning have migrated from a total dependence on terrestrial systems to an integrated architecture of ground-,

air-, and Space-based technologies that are systems unencumbered by the terrestrial limitations of topography

and distance. To achieve the Objective Force requirement for information superiority for advanced full spectrum operations, Space must be seamlessly integrated

into land-force operations. Seamless integration is not

about improvements to individual platforms, weapons,

sensors, or decision tools, but about the complete integration of land- and Space-based capabilities across the

full battlespace. Achieving information superiority

requires the Army to define what it wants from Space

and position itself to get it. 

A Historical Perspective of the Army’s 

Role in Space

From a historical perspective, the Army has had an

important role in the development and use of Space systems. In the early stages of the U.S. Space program, the

Army was instrumental in the development of rockets

and satellites. The first U.S. satellite was launched into

orbit by an Army Redstone rocket. Subsequently, presidential decisions in 1958 transferred Army rockets and

missiles to NASA.

The Sixties 

In 1961, DoD assigned the mission of managing and

operating U.S. military Space launch vehicles and satellites to the Air Force. In the early 1960s, the Defense

Communications Agency was formed and assumed the

role as the developer of communications payloads in

satellite systems. In 1962, the U.S. Army Satellite

Communications Agency was created with the responsibility for ground terminal and ground support development of satellite systems. The Army continues to perform this mission today, most prominently in ground

mobile force terminals for the Defense Satellite

Communications System and military strategic and tactical relay system. 

The Seventies

In the early 1970s, national satellite systems were providing essential strategic, national-level capabilities. At

the operational and tactical level, however, users were not

receiving products and services from these systems in a

timely manner. In 1973, the Army took the lead in DoD

by establishing the Army Space Program Office to execute the Army Tactical Exploitation of National

Capabilities Program (TENCAP), serve as the unique

technical and fiscal interface with the national program

offices, and manage the TENCAP materiel acquisition.

The TENCAP program is based on exploiting current

and future tactical potential of national capabilities and

integrating those capabilities into the tactical decisionmaking process as rapidly as possible. This approach was

so successful that Congress ordered all services to establish a TENCAP program based on the Army’s model in

1977. 

The Eighties

In the mid-1980s, the Army continued to solidify and

exploit Space within the Army. In 1983, the Army Space

36 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Satellites become “high ground

of Space” over last 30 years

O

By Bill Furr

Summer Theme

Past, Present, Future
37

Council was formed and consisted of designated general officers

who had the responsibility to

coordinate actions, approve proposals and provide guidance on

Army involvement in and use of

Space. In 1985, the Army

Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) established a Space Directorate at the

Combined Arms Combat

Developments Activity with the responsibility for the

development of concepts, doctrine, and operational

requirements for Space. The Space Directorate published the initial operational concept for Space, “Army

Space Operations,” in 1985. In August 1986, the Army

Space Planning Group, the Army element assigned to the

newly formed U.S. Space Command, was redesignated as

the Army Space Agency. The agency was the Army component to the U.S. Space Command and a field-operating

agency of Headquarters, Department of the Army. On

April 7, 1988, the U.S. Army Space Command was activated and organized to support the field Army. It

absorbed the planning and support functions of the

Army Space Agency and assumed operational Space missions. 

In the early to mid-1980s, our national Space policies

began to reflect a transition from peaceful use of Space

for science, technology, and commercial activities, to

policies reflecting Space systems as force enablers critical

to national survival. Policies reflecting Space as a

warfighting medium began to take shape. By dovetailing

national and DoD Space policies, the Army published an

Army Space Policy in 1985 that established Space capabilities as a priority for integration into future Army

operational doctrine and warfighter requirements. The

1985 Army Space Policy embodied tenets that were

underscored through subsequent Army Space policies

(1994, 2003):

· Support to the warfighter.

· Contribute to successful execution of Army missions.

· Contribute to Army modernization objectives.

· Enhance Army Space expertise.

· Exploit and use Space capabilities.

The Nineties

In August 1992, the U.S. Army Space Command

became a major subordinate element of the newly

formed U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense

Command (SSDC). In March 1998, SSDC was redesignated U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

(SMDC) to act as the specified proponent for Space and

as the principal adviser to the Army Staff for all matters

pertaining to the research and development of Space.

2000

It was the Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict that

brought Space into the spotlight. Kuwait and Iraq operations presented a different scenario than the traditional

Cold War European scenario. Our forces were faced

with limited national infrastructures, great expanses of

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Army’s Role, page 48)

Army’s role in developing

Space systems critical

Army responsibilities among Department of Defense roles and

missions must include active investment in and development of

Space for Army purposes. As the Army contributes to joint

warfighting and maintains dominance in land warfare, it may not

be able to depend solely on Space capabilities developed by other

services. Space systems, especially Space force enhancement

user equipment and terrestrial-based Space control systems, will

need to provide capabilities specifically for soldiers to continue

land dominance. The Army role in developing Space systems

must be active.

The Theater Missile Warning

Company fields and supports

the operation of Joint Tactical

Ground Stations that provide

early warning of missile

launches to our deployed

forces wherever the threat of

ballistic missiles exists. The

JTAGS systems provide

direct down-linked, in-theater, early warning of missile

launches. The five existing

JTAGS systems are operated by joint Army/Navy crews

and are a part of the U.S.

Strategic Command’s

Tactical Event System (TES). 
ne question that has arisen in considering the relevance of

Space activities to the transformation of the Army is

whether the Army is being innovative enough (some

would say proactive enough) in using and driving the

development of future Space capabilities. This is important since the development of information superiority, situational awareness, reduced forward footprints, enhanced

precision attack, and force protection are in large part

enabled by a robust Space capability supporting the transformed Force. 

Innovation

What is innovation? Webster’s defines innovation as

“something newly introduced; new method, custom,

device, etc.; change in the way of doing things.” Space is

a place. What we are really asking is how can we use this

new place to better do battle with our enemies?

Do we need to use, promote, or create innovation in

Space capabilities that support the transformation of the

Force well into the 21st century? Let’s begin by examining some of the profound developments in technology

that impacted military operations in the past.

Black Powder

Black powder (a compound of sulfur, charcoal, and

potassium nitrate) was developed in China sometime

before the 8th century. Writings reference its use to throw

arrows and stones. Several hundred years were required

for it to become known and used in the Western World.

Roger Bacon, an internationally known scientist, wrote a

treatise on its preparation in 1242. Its first documented

use was in the form of “bombs” at the battle of AlMansura in 1250. Innovation in quality, production and

“spin-off” products continued well into the 19th century.

Innovations in other materials allowed the development

of cannon and ultimately the artillery we know today.

Major innovation spanned centuries.

Tanks

The first rudimentary “tanks” were inspired by putting

armor on ordinary trucks. Technologists quickly reasoned

that the same could be done with a vehicle that could go

“cross country” and also carry a cannon as well as

machine guns. As is frequently the case, the technologist’s

“viewgraphs” outstripped the ability of engineers to actually build the device. Military leaders were reluctant to use

the new weapon, but the terrible loss of life on the

Western Front provided a compelling warfighter need.

Tanks were the hope to break the trench warfare stalemate. They were first used on Sept. 15, 1916, at the Battle

of the Somme and subsequently with some success.

Between the world wars, Germany became the home of

the principal innovators in the development of tanks and

the doctrine/tactics by which they would be used in World

War II. Generals Eisenhower and Patton kept the idea of

the tank alive in the United States, but we entered World

War II as technical, doctrinal, and tactical inferiors to the

Germans. By the end of World War II, the tank had

reached the level of premier weapon system in the U.S.

Army. Technical improvements since that time, while

profound, have been incremental in nature. Major innovations spanned half a century. 

Aircraft Carriers

The innovative marriage of aircraft and a ship

occurred with the commissioning of the Langley (CV-1)

on March 20, 1922. The first flight was launched from her

decks on Oct. 17, 1922. Doctrine and tactics for the use

of aircraft carriers developed slowly between the world

wars. Development was slow due to lack of funding and

little confidence by the senior leadership of the Navy that

the carrier would have much of a role in a battle that was

expected to be between lines of battleships.

Development proceeded despite this and, unlike tanks, the

United States maintained technical parity with Japan, our

38 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Army Innovation in Its Use of Space

going into the 21st Century

O

By John Marrs

Summer Theme

Is it Enough?
39

principal naval opponent. Two other technical advances

— jet engine aircraft and nuclear power systems — have

driven innovations since World War II. Major innovations

spanned half a century.

Space

The United States launched a satellite into Space in

1958 and the Army led the way. The Army did much of

the developmental work on missiles as well as communication, navigation, and imaging satellites that were the

foundation for the nation’s Space programs. By the early

1960s, the Army’s work in satellites (done principally by

what is now the Army Communications-Electronics

Command) migrated to NASA, the U.S. Air Force or the

National Reconnaissance Office. The Army and national

leadership did not view “Space” as a core competence of

the Army. While this was arguably a mistake, Army leadership did recognize that the medium of Space provided

the “high ground.” Possession of the high ground has

always enhanced and supported the Army’s ability to

accomplish its missions. With respect to launch operations, fundamental innovations spanned only a couple of

decades although recent activity by both NASA and the

Air Force gives hope for future advances. Meanwhile,

fundamental innovations in satellites continue into the

foreseeable future.

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities 

The Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities

(TENCAP) program seeks to integrate current and

emerging national capabilities into the tactical decisionmaking process. In 1973, the Army took the lead in the

Department of Defense by establishing

the Army Space Program Office (ASPO)

to execute the Army TENCAP program,

serve as the unique technical and fiscal

interface with the national program

offices and manage the TENCAP materiel acquisition.

ASPO has an outstanding record in rapidly exploiting

national capabilities and integrating these capabilities into

the Army’s (and sometime other services’) tactical decision-making process. This approach was so successful

that Congress ordered all services to establish a TENCAP

program based on the Army’s model in 1977.

Innovations continue to roll out the door at ASPO.

Individual innovations occur on timelines of less than a

decade.

Grenadier Beyond Line-Of-Sight Range and

Tracking System (BRAT)

One of ASPO’s most recent innovations, Grenadier

BRAT combines a small user device containing a global

positioning system with a transmitter. It produces a signal

captured by a satellite system, which is processed through

various nodes, including the U.S. Army Space and Missile

Defense Command’s (SMDC’s) Space-Based Blue Force

Tracking Mission Management Center (MMC). The

information then passes on to numerous military users.

The whole process is fast enough to give very good situational awareness of the location of friendly units.

Grenadier BRAT came about quietly. National capabilities to receive certain low probability of intercept/detect

signals (highly classified at the time) were made known to

ASPO and the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense

Command (now SMDC) leadership in the early 1990s. By

1993, the first “lab” models were being developed to

prove the technical feasibility. By 1994, the Army Training

and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC’s) Battle Command

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Innovation, page 51)

Army’s creative use of

Space integral to 

obejctive force

The Army does not view Space activities as a core

competency and this has been solidified at the

national level by designating the Air Force as the

executive agent for Space. Thus, the Army (from

the point of view of a Space advocate) has limited

resources and authority to influence the development of Space capabilities. The Army’s role, however, has been (and is likely to continue to be) one

of pushing for user equipment that exploits Space.

There is ample opportunity for the Army to be

creative and innovative in development of capabilities integral to the Objective Force. 

The Army has a vested

interest in helping to

control the high ground,

which means that air

defense concepts

already expanded to

missile defense must be

expanded to control 

of Space. 
or people who place themselves in harm’s way, it is easy

to recognize a “transformational” capability. If you are

going to fly a combat sortie into Country X, you analyze

everything this adversary can throw at you and assess

whether you can/will survive. If he has a lethal capability, like an SA-20, you have to ask, “What system (capability) do I need in order to survive and be combat

effective?” If the answers aren’t satisfactory from a system perspective for either survival or combat effectiveness, you can then assess your concept of operations to

see if there is any way you can increase your odds or

effectiveness. If it still looks bad, you start checking for

a sinus block or a maintenance nondelivery, or begin the

process of groveling to your commander to cancel the

mission because failure is imminent!

Fortunately, in our recent history, we’ve not had to

grovel to our leaders to beg out of combat sorties, and

U.S. systems have proven combat effective. So let’s

change perspectives and evaluate the United States from

an adversary’s viewpoint. Our adversaries have had to

make some difficult choices over the last century when

they assessed whether to attack the United States or

invade their neighbor (a U.S. ally) and risk U.S. retaliation. So what questions might they ask?

“What capability/system do I need to face the U.S.

Armed Forces and its fill in the weapon system?” In the

last century, Soviet leaders constantly asked that question of themselves. The North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) probably never matched the

overall combat power of the Soviet Union’s forces available for a war in Central Europe. Yet NATO did field

conventional capabilities to deny the Soviets the potential for an easy victory in a conventional battle.

Innovative weapons and concepts, such as precisionguided munitions, antitank guided missiles, superior

frontline fighters, and stealth weighed heavily in the

Soviets’ assessments for success of either their systems

or their operational concepts.

Concerning the risks they could encounter, our current adversaries might ask themselves, “What capability/system do I need to face the U.S. Armed Forces and

their F-15s or F-16s?” Adversaries are beginning to find

viable answers to this question and are starting to field

aircraft that are better than ours. Those without the

resources to train pilots to beat U.S. pilots can invest in

Integrated Air Defense Systems with double-digit surface-to-air missiles (SAM) that effectively counter current U.S. aircraft. However, neutralizing U.S. F-15, F-16,

and F/A-18 fighter aircraft does not guarantee air dominance because the United States may be able to field

either transformational defensive systems that neutralize

adversary SAMs for survivability or transformational

weapons that allow standoff precision engagement of

critical target sets. Another strategy adversaries might

choose involves re-establishing dominance over potential foes. Here too, superior training or concepts of

operations can continue to give U.S. pilots the edge. If

the United States does not continue to retain the technological lead and field new capabilities, at some point

in time, we may see adversaries who determine that they

can challenge us in a conventional war and will make

engagement decisions based on that assessment.

So what do we do? We can field a standoff weapon

for the fleet like the Joint Air to Surface Standoff

Missile (JASSM) or JASSM-ER (extended range), thus

forcing our adversaries to go back into their decision

cycle because these weapons may be transformational.

If they can’t afford the investment necessary to shoot

down a JASSM or the launching aircraft or if no technological solution enables this engagement, then they

must assess the risk that JASSM presents. “Can it penetrate my hard and deeply buried targets that I hold

dear?” “Has the United States bought enough of

them?” If the answers to these questions come up in

40 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

The Warfighter’s Perspective

F

By Col. Kurt Dittmer, USAF

Summer Theme

Transformation

Do I think an adversary will

need to think twice about

invading his neighbor? 

You bet. 
41

favor of the United States, then they may think

twice about invading their neighbor and facing

the full brunt of U.S. combat capability.

Let’s try this new analysis on a new and

somewhat controversial system — the F/A-22.

I recently spent quite a bit of time helping put

together a study on this aircraft directed by

Defense Planning Guidance, so I can reasonably assess its capabilities. If I represented

Country X and were contemplating going to

war against F/A-22s, this would be my take: “What

capability/system do I need to face the U.S. Armed

Forces and their F/A-22s?” I would turn to my air force

commander and get the “Air Staff salute” because no

aircraft produced in any country, now or for the foreseeable future, can match the aerodynamic performance

of that airplane. Furthermore, the fact that it has integrated avionics, an Active Electronically Scanned Array

radar, and eight air-to-air missiles means that your pilots

will face the most lethal weapon system ever built.

Therefore, an adversary who wants to counter the F/A22 in the air will have to make significant investments

requiring research and development and lots of time

(unless another hot spot in the world is occupying our

entire F/A-22 fleet because we didn’t buy enough of

them).

I would ask my ground force, air defense commander to assess what capability he or she has that measures

up to the capabilities the F/A-22 will bring to the fight,

and again I’ll get the Air Staff salute. The commander

can’t answer the question because no one knows what

the first engagement will even look like.

Instead of equipment, I decide I have to invade my

neighbor now or never and ask my commanders to look

at tactics, training, and procedures to counter the F/A22’s capabilities. I tell them to start a training program to

prepare for imminent combat, which would look something like this: “Today you SAM operators will need to

practice against a weapon system that has the radar cross

section of a golf ball. It will be flying above 40,000 feet

at Mach 1.5. Okay, got that picture? Good! These F/A22s will be throwing Joint Direct Attack Munitions or

small-diameter bombs at you outside your shot range!

Now, in order to practice this profile, I would provide

you something that can fly this profile, but we don’t

have anything even remotely close, so . . . any questions?”

Similarly, for the pilots: “Today, your adversary will

be a two-ship formation of Raptors. To simulate what

you will be seeing, I want you to take your four-ship out

and place your radars on 10-mile scope, turn your radarwarning receivers off, and plan to start your defensive

maneuvers outside your maximum weapons envelope.

Plan on ‘kill removal’ eliminating a couple of members

of your flight prior to the merge. For those who do

merge, you will be facing AIM-9X and AIM-120 missiles

from the most maneuverable fighter ever built. If you

elect to run, a valid separation must exceed Mach 2.0.

Any questions?”

“Sir, I think my sinuses . . .”

Do I think the Raptor is transformational? Yes. Do I

think an adversary will need to think twice about invading his neighbor? You bet. In fact, what systems would

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Warfighter’s Perspective, page 52)

About the next 

transformation system

Which transformational system is going to change the

way an enemy will fight his next war or perhaps deter

him from ever crossing the border in anger? Spacebased missile defense? The Airborne Laser? The

Crusader? The CV-22? The answer is an important

one. I just hope someone is asking the question. A

RAND analyst captured one of my greatest concerns

when he said, “Cost matters, of course, but too often

the most ‘cost-effective’ system is the one that will

allow our forces to lose the war at least cost.”1

Part of the Advanced Concept

Technology Demonstration, the Tactical

High Energy Laser (THEL) at the High

Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) has successfully demonstrated the

Army’s ability to intercept rockets and

artillery pieces. On June 6, 2000, the

THEL intercepted its first Katyusha rocket. Since then, testing in November 2002

has illustrated the THEL’s increased abilities with intercepts of smaller and faster

moving artillery pieces.
magine the horror of death by friendly fire. See the faces

of a mother and father at the moment they are told their

son or daughter was killed by American fire. Today, far

more than bullets can cause this horrific scene. This is a

new age and there are new threats.

Information warfare is the latest theme to capture the

imagination of the U.S. Army. The Objective Force, the

technological army with the narrow soldier base, depends

on the rapid and accurate flow of information to fuel its

highly technical killing power. To protect its classified

information, this army can depend on traditional security

elements. This new army, however, also generates a massive amount of unclassified material that is overlooked by

traditional security measures. Could this material reveal

the secrets the Army hopes to protect? In the information

revolution, “open source” information is the wild card of

the modern battlefield. It is a form of friendly fire. The

Army must protect this vulnerability through operations

security.

Information — its access, use, analysis, and control —

is clearly a military matter. Classified information is protected by an array of security measures that are well

known and practiced. But what about the literally millions

of bits of unclassified personnel, logistical, operational,

and supply documents that the Objective Force is generating? What can this information reveal and who will

watch over it? What will protect this information that

spews out over unsecured faxes, e-mail messages and telephone networks?

“The General is skillful in attack whose opponent does not

know what to defend, and he is skillful in defense whose opponent

does not know what to attack.”

— Sun Tsu 400-321 B.C

In the furor over recent revelations of Chinese espionage, who has asked how much they gathered from

totally legal, totally open sources? What country will risk

a major espionage recruitment when the same materials

could be collected from an uncontrolled, open military

Web site? Was it not Mao Tse Tung himself who counseled that, “The commander applies all possible and necessary methods of reconnaissance and ponders on the

information gathered, eliminating the false and retaining

the true, proceeding from one to the other, from the outside to the inside...?” Does this not suggest collecting

the unclassified until one can interpolate the secret?

The Army must face this modern problem. Can the

flow of information necessary to conduct operations hurt

the Service? What if the unclassified material is so voluminous, so comprehensive that it reveals the essential

secrets the Army is otherwise so careful to protect?

At the beginning of World War II, some 300 British

engineers died because they could not defuse the new

electrical bombs dropped by the Germans over England.

It took trial and error and the chance discovery of intact

electrical bombs on a downed German aircraft before the

technology was defeated.

Eight years earlier, in 1932, the technology for such

bombs had been entered into the public records of the

British patent office, yet none of the engineers knew

about this open source of information.

Three hundred men died while the answer they sought

gathered dust in an unlikely place. Those who built the

bombs that killed these men had found the information

first and laid claim to it legally and openly. Had they

known this, it would have been easy to convince the

British people of the value of open source awareness.

A shop-worn story of yesteryear? Are hired workers

on NATO compounds in the Balkans pacing off mortar

ranges, as did the Vietnamese before them? Was it not the

Belgian resistance fighter who said that people who experience occupation know the adversary better than he

knows himself? 

42 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

How Information Flows from

the Modern Battlefield 

I

By John W. Davis

Summer Theme

Wild Card
43

An earlier example involves the

Maxim gun. When asked in 1884 why

Western nations had colonized almost

the entire known world, the English

writer Hilaire Belloc said that it was not

because of their advanced civilization,

greater universities, or cultural advances.

No, he quipped, “Whatever happens,

we have got the Maxim gun, and they

have not!” Of course, the technology

for this early machine gun and other

technological information was routinely

shared and sold in open contracts

between “civilized” countries. In World

War I this exchange of information

resulted in the slaughter of an entire

generation; by then all nations had

access to the Maxim gun.

These stories show how open source, openly available

information works. What is routinely, even inadvertently

given away today could kill someone tomorrow.

Information that is not tracked could later surprise the

Army on the battlefield. These stories about open source

information end in bloodshed. Is it inappropriate to say

that the victims died from friendly fire?

Information is the lifeblood of the high-technology

Objective Force. An array of information will deploy with

the Objective Force wherever it goes, whoever the adversary is. Unlike most of the adversaries of the United

States, whose technological developments are not shared

openly, much of the information about the Objective

Forces’ development is available to the entire world. For

example, the Associated Press reported on a Pentagon

armaments display showing soldiers with heat-sensitive

night-vision sight, lightweight body armor, and computer

backpacks. They reported concepts about laser warplanes,

seagoing missiles, and more. Today there are many armaments magazines, defense sites on the Internet, and newspapers reporting the business of warfare. These open

sources of information are cheap, readily accessible, and

accurate.

Through the eyes of a Western analyst, the publications are what they seem: military trade journals that cover

market share, sales opportunities, competitive and joint

ventures, and national acquisition goals. They are straightforward.

Graphs and computer-generated art enhance the stories and illustrate the concepts. In the photographs used,

sleek missiles fly, spotless armored vehicles roll, and

wholesome, clean soldiers pose with the latest weaponry

in pleasant pastures. There is no blood.

Consider now the reader of this same information

from poorer, less industrialized, embargoed, or otherwise

ostracized nations. Consider also the people of paranations, the ethnic clans, narcotics traffickers, and terrorists. They see the same information in terms of life or

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal

(See Wild Card, page 54)

Even the most innocuous

information can, in the

wrong hands, kill

The arms race fuels the West’s ever expanding market and

the information-rich marketing ethic that advertises it. The

military must create policies that protect all its information —

even the unclassified — because, in this new world, information that kills soldiers is a commodity available for sale.

Operations security, a process of securing this unclassified

information, can protect the Objective Force. The security

process is simple. Each element of the Army must ask itself,

“What is it that I must protect, or else I’ll fail in my mission?”

The answer is that critical information must be protected. Not

everything that can compromise a mission is classified.
time-honored battle of ideas is being waged among and

within the military Services. Over the centuries the relative importance of sea power, land power, and more

recently air power have been debated and then proven in

various wartime and battlefield venues. Over the last 50

years, and particularly in the last 15, Space has become an

additional topic of the debate. Born into DoD by the

Army, now shepherded mainly by the Air Force but

heavily used by all the Services, Space holds a prominent

place in the battle of ideas. As Space capabilities and

importance grows, we find several historical lessons from

the development of airpower that teach us to get as

much from Space as possible — and to stop right there.

To prevent expecting the unreasonable, a carefully directed development approach is required. I believe the right

approach is to use architectures.

Space is a domain, like sea, land, and air, but unlike

them it is not heavily populated and not even heavily trafficked, relatively speaking. It has therefore been treated

mostly as a mission, rather than a domain or place. Either

way, its topography is as important as its terrestrial counterparts in that it is what has been termed “the ultimate

high ground.” The value of Space can hardly be summarized in this short article, but our knowledgeable readership already knows it provides a high and, when properly protected, relatively safe vantage point for communications transponders, navigation, and timing signal

transmitters, ISR sensors, environmental monitoring sensors, and missile warning sensors. These force enhancement capabilities provided by Space-based equipment are

the basis, along with miniaturization of computer electronics, for the ongoing revolutionary transformation of

modern warfare. We are moving quickly from dependence upon armor and mass to decisive use of information and precision facilitated by effective use of Space. 

MG Michael Hamel, the commander of 14th Air

Force — operational headquarters responsible for bringing Air Force Space capabilities to their warfighters —

said the immediate role of Space is that it sets the conditions under which terrestrial combat is waged. Hamel

makes this statement in part to emphasize the need to

continue to build Space smartly and to protect the capabilities we have as well as to provide the ability to negate

adversary Space capabilities and prevent adversaries from

using our own Space capabilities. In other words, he

emphasizes the need to do Space control. Clearly, however, his statement is also a reminder of the limitations

of Space. Space ultimately does not win the terrestrial

battle although it can make winning much more efficient.

The point is, winning and holding a land mass requires a

land force, establishing sea and air superiority requires

sea and air power. All benefit greatly from wise use of

Space, but terrestrial superiority requires terrestrial

power, and even in this age of transformation, we must

never forget it. 

While it is simply irresponsible not to get the most we

can from Space power, we should keep its limitations in

mind. In “The Limits of Airpower,” Mark Clodfelter

draws similar lessons from the American bombing of

North Vietnam. For the airpower case he writes of the

consequences of capitalizing on the “tremendous rush

of technology” which has resulted in astounding U.S.

military airpower but is also applicable to other modern

American weaponry. 

Clodfelter warns “What [technology] has done ... is

to create a modern vision of air power that focuses on

the lethality of its weaponry rather than on that weaponry’s effectiveness as a political instrument.” In the

Vietnam case “They never fully realized that air power’s

political efficacy varies according to many diverse elements ... ” Space capabilities will grow ever more powerful, and as they do, we need to keep in frank perspective their real impact and potential. 

This does not mean the right approach is to relegate

44 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

A

By Ed Zehner

Summer Theme

Terrestrial Superiority still Requires

Terrestrial Power, but Space makes

Winning it Efficient

The Limits of Space Power
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 45

Space to an unaggressive minor role. The maturing of

airpower offers another lesson built on the Vietnam heritage. The Honorable Peter B. Teets, Undersecretary of

the Air Force and Director of the National

Reconnaissance Office, cites the decisive influence of air

power in the Kosovo campaign to support “the principle

of applying the capabilities of a new medium — not only

integration into other existing forms of warfare, but also

development of entirely new ones conceivably capable of

winning wars on their own.” The lesson is to drive Space

power into every military endeavor it can support. We

need to be creative, forceful, and open-minded about

new ways to employ Space, to eventually include potentially lethal and even decisive Space power. 

While it will certainly be some time before Space

force application could reach the level of lethality that

Clodfelter and Teets are discussing, as lethality enters the

lexicon of Space weaponry, we should shape our thinking of Space in terms of “apply[ing] capabilities of the

new medium to all conceivable forms of war fighting”

and in terms of its “effectiveness as a political instrument.” Space has not had a particularly strong start

along these lines, but it is quickly gaining momentum.

DoD should pay close attention to getting the most from

Space capabilities and potential capabilities, without creating unrealistic expectations. Fortunately, we have a

trustworthy method to do this: architectures.

Architectures are very effective means to describe systems and relationships, and they are being institutionalized in DoD system development, acquisition, and operation. According to a definition based on IEEE STD

610.12, an architecture is the structure of components,

their relationships, and the principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution over time.

Architectures are not to be arbitrarily structured. To this

end, a DoD Architecture Framework directive is nearing

approval and specifically describes required structure and

content of DoD architectures. 

Systems in the architecture are functionally derived;

they are needed capabilities fully compatible with the

other capabilities in the architecture. New systems should

be built only if they occupy a defined role in the architecture. Developing and integrating this architecture

across DoD and IC Space mission areas is the National

Security Space Architect mission. The NSSA Space architecture reflects the appropriate balance of Space systems

within the system-of-systems, and since the architecture

is responsive to OSD, the IC, JCS, and the Services, it is

integrated with the larger system-of-systems they develop. In other words, a balanced approach is developed,

driven by the National Security SpaceAarchitecture,

which is in turn driven by DoD and national guidance.

The new CJCSI 3170.01C describes Functional

Capabilities Boards which will “Ensure that the integrated architecture(s) (when available) is updated as required

and accurately reflects the operational, systems, and technical attributes of the functional area across the range of

military operations and through time.” We encourage

the use of architectures for all functional areas and an

overarching architecture specifically developed to

describe structure, inter-relationships, and principles and

guidelines for development and evolution of functional

areas.

Architectures provide 

needed structure, 

balance

Architectures carefully developed and

thoughtfully implemented, can guide DoD and

national agencies to strike the right balance

between applications of Space power in all

possible venues, and using it toward the maximum national security and political advantage.

Architectures provide the structure to steer

Space zealots and their corporate Services and

agencies toward maximizing what we can get

out of Space while maintaining the maxim that

winning terrestrial wars requires terrestrial

power. 

Ed Zehner supports the Space and Missile Defense Command Force

Development and Integration Center in Colorado Springs, Colo. He

retired from the Air Force in 2001 after a tour on the Joint Staff. He com -

manded two launch squadrons at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., was a satellite

operator at Falcon AFB, Colo., and a Minuteman III ICBM launch officer

at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo.

Space is a domain, like sea,

land, and air, but unlike

them it is not heavily 

populated and not even

heavily trafficked, relatively

speaking. It has therefore

been treated mostly as a

mission, rather than a

domain or place.
46 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

der’s target list may be sufficient in many

instances to negate certain adversary uses.

However, against an enemy’s Space capabilities, we are clearly now in an era where collateral damage must be carefully considered

in every operation. Reversible effects may be

a critical goal.

While many Space system nodes are fixed

facilities or sites, many also are mobile and

present another dimension to the targeting

process. Under the best conditions, the

requirement to find and fix the enemy’s

movers, shooters, and emitters is a challenge.

Our enemies know that mobile terrestrial

Space system targets present unique challenges to intelligence collection. Our enemy

also knows that fixed sites are very vulnerable to many forms of attack. He knows that

although he may give up some capability

(mobile systems also have unique weaknesses, such as radio frequency power capability),

highly mobile nodes remain difficult to find,

fix, and destroy. An example of a time sensitive terrestrial Space target would be the

mobile long-range cordless phone system or

a telecommunications relay van used to disseminate the imagery report to the field

commander. Such targets are important to

us now and will continue to be through the

Objective Force timeframe. They will, however, change and become more difficult to

find, target, and kill. We will see lower signal

strengths, more low probability of intercept/low probability of detection signals,

more active deception, and more physical

and electronic hardening. Since the information these enemy signals carry is of critical

importance in land warfare, the Army should

be at the leading edge in developing combat

capability to attack these small, mobile, and

hardened nodes.

How the ARSST Can Help

Army Space Support Teams (ARSSTs)

fcan provide the supported commander with

a unique capability to enhance the targeting

process. The ARSST is trained to understand all aspects of Space systems. The

intelligence officer assigned to the ARSST is

specifically trained to perform IPB on the

threat’s use of Space. The ARSST will contribute to the G-2’s overall IPaB effort by trying to determine the enemy’s Space system

vulnerabilities, especially his most critical link

or node in a particular targeting situation. By

integrating itself into the targeting process,

the ARSST is properly positioned to nominate the right piece of the threat’s Space system for disruption or destruction. For relatively limited ordnance or nonlethal weapon

expenditure, the payoff of taking away the

adversary’s use of Space will likely have a

huge effect. This is especially true if the

enemy relies on Space for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and command

and control. 

The training and positioning of the

ARSST makes it an inevitable asset in the

effort to deny an adversary’s use of Space.

Targeting Adversaries ... from Page 19

LTC Dean Taylor is the SMDC Deputy G2 for

Operations. Previous to this assignment, he served

three years as the J2 Collection Manager for USSPACECOM and NORAD. He served a year in Bosnia in the

1st Armored Division G2 and MI Battalion S3 as part of

IFOR. He has also served in several tactical intelligence assignments with armor, infantry, and Special

Forces units.

CW4 Daniel Rupp is an All Source Intelligence

Technician assigned to Army Space G2. Prior to this

assignment, he spent three years as an analyst at Joint

Task Force Full Accounting on the POW/MIA mission

from the war in Southeast Asia. He also has served on

the Joint Contingency Operations Team - Battle

Command Training Program; Headquarters V Corps;

and Headquarters 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, as

well as assignments at 2nd Infantry Division, 4th

Infantry Division; 24th Psychological Operations

Company (USAR) Control Group, and U.S. Army

Intelligence Center and School.

more than 50 tactical missions. These

missions allow combatant commanders to maneuver their units without

breaks in communications. 

MAJ Stephen Elle, Executive

Officer, 1st SATCON, said, “We are

extremely proud of the responsive

and proactive support our units gave

to forces on the ground. With the

rapid pace of the war, and the rapid

movement of ground forces, maintaining communications was

absolutely essential. Our units

enabled them to do that.”

The Space Based Blue Force

Tracking Mission Management

Center enhanced the tactical commander’s ability to maintain visibility

of his deployed forces. The SB-BFT

MMC worked closely with Special

Operations Forces in theater to monitor their aircraft and ground forces,

especially in emergency situations.

And at the logical, if not geographic, center of all this energy and

accomplishment, functioned the

SMDC Operations Center.

As of this writing, the SMDC OC

has processed over 96 Requests for

Information that were then routed

and monitored for deployed units.

Requests for SORC imagery were sent

to the forward elements. Questions

about maintenance and operational

support of communications equipment were answered, after the SMDCOC researched the problem. 

The Officer in Charge of the

SMDC-OC, LTC Steve Dreiling, said,

“Even though the OC was a quiet element in the war effort, our soldiers

were nonetheless very important.

Our job is to function as a 24/7 conduit for information from the front to

the command elements. Each and

every soldier who manned a consol in

the OC is an outstanding individual

who really deserves a pat on the back

for a job well done.”

Army Space Command presently

has over 100 soldiers, civilians and

contractors deployed overseas in support of current operations. As they

come home, Army Space will gather

their personal stories about the missions described above, to share with

all. 

Army Space on Target ... from Page 25

MAJ Laura Kenney is a mobilized reservist serving in the

Army Space Command Public Affairs Office in support of

Operation Enduring Freedom. She served five years

Active Duty as an enlisted journalist with Air Defense

Command in Germany. As a commissioned Reserve officer, she performed in Public Affairs in the Gulf War theater,

and served as deputy public affairs officer for the American

sector in Kosovo in 2001. 
cated that about half of our investment

was in ground terminals. It was one

thing to advocate that the Air Force

spend the money to modernize the

Space segment; it was quite another to

find an equivalent amount of scarce

Army dollars to replace the ground segment. The result of such dilemmas is

that we are often forced to take something other than the optimum path. A

competitor, new to the scene, may not

be burdened with such considerations.

They will likely find it easier to proceed

straight to a superior technical goal than

we will. Short cuts can make the playing field more level for the competition.

Commercial success is another way

of generating a shortcut. The

Wideband Gapfiller is considered by

some to be an excellent example of this

success. Commercial success in geosynchronous, long-haul communications enabled us to get far more capability for the dollar than we could have

obtained following the traditional development path that had served us so well

in prior military systems. An opponent

today can obtain that same bandwidth

in a direct, commercial transaction. The

same commercial shortcut is now available in low-Earth imaging satellites.

The shortcuts get easier, they work to

the advantage of the tortoise.

Possibility Three. Future challenges

and dangers will remain unpredictable.

After four decades of Space development, the fielding of Space systems

is still not routine. Recent problems

with two of our major Space developments, the future imagery architecture

(FIA) and the Space-based infrared system, have required a major infusion of

scarce Space dollars to repair the programs. Even though both programs

were thought to be natural extensions

of previous efforts and not cases of

dealing with the unknown, system

development still has not progressed as

planned.

Compounding the development

problems is our lack of progress in

developing the tools and procedures to

understand how effectiveness on the

battlefield depends on the specific technical capabilities of Space assets. The

Army’s combat simulations still do not

contain an adequate representation of

Space, whether it is reconnaissance or

communications. As a consequence,

we cannot quantify the contribution

that these Space assets could make.

The inevitable tradeoffs between

spending more or less for capability on

orbit always go for less because we cannot demonstrate the penalty for less

capability.

Commercial success is also spotty.

A decade ago commercial Space communications were predicted to be so

numerous and capable by 2005 that

some thought that dedicated military

satellite communications systems would

be a thing of the past. And while certain sectors continue to do well, Space

Daily recently indicated

“... satellite operators face numerous

challenges that threaten to obstruct

their path to greater profitability.

Optimistic demand growth projections

that led many operators to launch new

transponders failed to materialize, leaving them with excess capacity and compelling them to reduce lease rates.”

All is not well in the launch business

either. The dramatic decrease in costto-orbit that was predicted a decade ago

has not yet materialized, partly because

of our unfulfilled technical optimism

and partly because the launch market

has sagged. In 2001, 39 launches

worldwide generated nearly $3.3 billion

in revenues according to one estimate.

While this is not to be ignored, launch

rates of more than 100 per year were

predicted for the early 2000s as recently

as a decade ago. 

Additionally, the national competition for scarce Space dollars is going to

get more intense. There are clearly

competing military, intelligence, and

civilian priorities. Some are mixed such

as GPS modernization, which has both

significant military requirements to

increase the anti-jam margin and significant civilian needs such as a second

civilian frequency, increased accuracy

and proven reliability. As the war on

terrorism becomes better defined, we

are likely to see the need arise for new

and different types of Space sensors

that stress the monitoring of less traditional types of targets. 

If the Objective Force is to truly

rely on Space support for critical battlefield functions, then we have to be able

to define how we will do that now —

while the future combat system (FCS) is

still being created. We have to be able

to build and deploy the Space segment

while the FCS is being developed and

deployed. We have to define the

ground equipment in time for it to be

built into the FCS. Otherwise, Space is

always going to be an add-on.

Even the most optimistic Space

advocate among us should be wary of

claiming that we know how to do this.

We have more questions than we have

answers. How do we guarantee the

synchronization needed to support the

fielding of the Objective Force? How

do we support training? Is the Space

segment all in Space or do we need a

mix of satellites and high-altitude, longendurance unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAVs)? Can we — or anyone —

afford the Space segment needed to

provide the on-call, 24/7, priority support that the warfighter must have?

How do we replace failures? [Launchon-demand? Airships? UAVs?]

Could it be that the real competition

is in answering these questions? Or, to

paraphrase Pogo: “I have met the competition and they are us.” Given the

magnitude of the problem, it will take at

least a few dedicated men and women

to bring this off. But then that is where

Army Space started. Now where

did we put that shoestring?

High Ground ... from Page 23

Tomas Pagán is the Deputy Chief Scientist of the

U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command

Headquarters. He is a key technical advisor and

principal consultant to the Commander and Chief

Scientist and is a command representative on technical issues to the Headquarters of the Department

of Army staff. He has primary Command

Headquarters responsibility that includes identifying

new technologies and ideas for application in the

areas of Space, Missile Defense, Directed Energy

Technology Programs, and advanced technologies.

Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 47
48 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

desert to command and control, and limited knowledge of the terrain or obstacles in

which the Iraqi forces would deploy.

Space systems that traditionally supported

strategic missions were realigned to support operational and tactical level missions.

Military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) systems were soon overtaxed,

requiring repositioning of satellites and

reallocation of channels and bandwidth

from strategic to tactical use. Imagery,

both national and commercial, became

critical for the development of maps, terrain analysis, and intelligence. Processing

facilities often were halfway around the

world — yet our troops required near-realtime dissemination. The vast desert

expanses with no key terrain features presented a problem of precise navigation

that was solved by using the newly orbited

global positioning system (GPS) constellation and rushing demonstration small

lightweight GPS receivers into theater.

The Iraqi SCUD missile presented a formidable threat not only to coalition forces

but also to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Detection of missile launches was accomplished by altering the strategic missile

warning system and emplacing ad hoc

warning to theater from the continental

United States. Clearly, the need for satellite systems to support tactical operations

surged in importance during this conflict. 

Service Roles and

Responsibilities

Decisions on Space responsibilities

forged throughout the last three decades

have charted lanes in the road for the

Services that still exist today. Each military

Service has the responsibility to train,

equip and provide forces for unique

Service Space operations and for joint

operations. This recognizes both the

unique requirements of each Service and

the joint responsibilities established by

Title 10, United States Code. DoD

Directive (DODD) 5100.1 further delineates the responsibility of the military

Services to coordinate the development of

doctrine, procedures, and equipment

employed in the conduct of Space operations. Space control is included in the

intent of this directive. The Army and

Navy develop and train forces to conduct

Space control missions from the surface of

the Earth. The Air Force functions specifically call for defense of the United States

against Space attack, Space supremacy and

defeat of Space forces. Launch and Space

support for DoD is assigned to the Air

Force. These Space control Service

responsibilities originate from the Service

roles and responsibilities established

throughout the development of military

Space. The emphasis over the years has

changed from solely single Service missions to joint development and cooperation in Space and Space-associated missions.

The Air Force was assigned responsibility for development, production, and

deployment of Space systems for warning

and surveillance, military satellite communications, navigation, and launch vehicles,

including launch and orbital support operations. As a result of DSCS, the Army was

assigned responsibility for ground terminal

development and acquisition and payload

control. In the TENCAP program, each

of the Services was responsible for the

development of its own TENCAP capabilities. The Navy was designated the

responsible Service for sea-launch capability and for Service-unique capability that

supports its operational needs, such as

ultra high frequency communications.

When a Space capability crosses multiservice requirements, a joint program office is

usually established (e.g., NAVSTAR GPS,

global broadcast and joint tactical ground

stations) to represent the multiservice

requirements and interests.

The Changing Road

The roles, missions, and relationships

for current Space capabilities are firmly

and clearly established. There are a number of factors, however, that may influence

or change the present missions and relationships.

First, the Commission to Assess

United States National Security Space

Management and Organization presented

a number of recommendations to the

Secretary of Defense, many of which are

in the process of being implemented

(amplification of Service functions have

been incorporated in DoDD 5100.1). The

recommendations satisfied the Secretary

of Defense’s intent to consolidate management of Space programs and to gain visibility for programming and budgeting of

Space capabilities. The accepted recommendations of the Space Commission are

considered to be extremely positive to the

organization and management of Space at

this time. There are three recommendations, however, that could have an effect

on how the Army approaches and influences Space in the future: (1) The designation of the Department of the Air

Force as the Executive Agent for Space

with planning, programming, and acquisition of Space systems; (2) the establishment of a “virtual” major force program

for Space to increase the visibility into the

resources allocated for Space activities;

and (3) the assignment of the National

Security Space Architect (NSSA) to the

Under Secretary of the Air Force. The

NSSA will report on the consistency of

the implementation of the defense and

intelligence Space programs with policy,

planning guidance, and architectural decisions. Most importantly, from an Army

perspective, the NSSA will assess trades

between Space and non-Space solutions

and integration of Space with land, sea,

and air forces. These changes place a great

deal of authority and power over the

future of Space and the budgetary means

for the development of future Space with

the Air Force. 

The second major factor is the merger

of U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) and U.S. Strategic Command

(USSTRATCOM) as USSTRATCOM and

the assignment of new missions in the

Unified Command Plan (UCP). Since

Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the importance of Space to military operations has

been recognized. Far-sighted leadership at

USSPACECOM pushed the envelope in

highlighting the importance of Space to

national security and warfighting success.

USSPACECOM’s showcase planning document, the Long-range Plan, provided a

comprehensive Joint plan for Space that

Army’s Role ... from Page 37
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 49

integrated Service capabilities and

requirements through participation

and support of its components.

USSPACECOM supported and advocated the roles of the Services in support of Space operations through

integration of its Joint Space Forces in

military operations. USSPACECOM

clearly saw the role and contributions

each Service provided to Joint Space

operations and accordingly advocated

for or directly assigned missions. The

success of Army support was evident

in Space support teams, missile warning, payload control, and Space-based

Blue Force Tracking. Now with the

merger of the two commands and the

revision of the UCP that assigned the

new missions of global strike and

command, control, communications,

computers, intelligence, surveillance,

and reconnaissance, along with the

original missions of Space and integrated missile defense, USSTRATCOM will face a strategic challenge in

maintaining the focus and advocacy

for the Service roles in Space. Faced

with an immense portfolio of missions, USSTRATCOM may look to its

primary Service component command

for Space, Air Force Space Command,

to be the voice and advocate for Space

and Space programs. 

The third factor is the proposed

change from the Requirements

Generation System (RGS) (CJCSI

3170.01A) to Joint Capabilities

Integration and Development System

(JCIDS) (CJCSI 3170.01C ), which is

in draft. The JCIDS is a new and different concept that establishes the

structure and defines how new capabilities will be developed and validated

within DoD. The major difference

between the old RGS and JCIDS is

that JCIDS is top-down driven based

on “national defense policy and centered in the common Joint warfighting

construct.” From the beginning,

future capabilities will be developed in

an integrated fashion and will be

“born Joint.” Capabilities will be

developed to support an overarching

Joint concept of operations through

Joint operating concepts and Joint

functional concepts. Supporting the

concepts will be integrated architectures that develop operational, system

and technical views for a functional

area. Within the JCIDS structure, the

focal point for organization, analysis

and prioritization of warfighting capabilities is the Functional Capabilities

Board (FCB). The FCB is a body that

would be permanently established by

the Joint Requirements Oversight

Council. The current concept is for

FCBs to align to functional areas such

as “gathering information, producing

information, preventing effects, causing effects, and focused logistics.” We

might expect that Space, as a whole, or

subsets of Space (e.g., Space control,

MILSATCOM, etc.) would be considered in the FCBs, but there would not

be a specific FCB for Space. The FCB

is responsible for the development

and maintenance of functional concepts and integrated architectures, and

the coordination, integration, and

deconfliction of DoD component

efforts within the functional area.

FCB efforts are focused on the development of the entire range of doctrine, organization, training, materiel,

leadership, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) solutions. JCIDS documentation will be forwarded to the

Joint Requirements Oversight Council

for decision after evaluation and analysis by the FCB to ensure concept and

architectural compliance. The FCB is

the clearinghouse for warfighting

requirements and the proponent of

ultimate solutions.

The Army Path

With the acceptance of the Space

Commission Report in 2001, the

ongoing changes to the management

and organization of Space including

the merger of USSPACECOM and

USSTRATCOM, and the pending

publication of JCIDS, the centers of

gravity have changed for Space and

the Army must change with them. It

is expected that these roles will continue into the near future; however, it

is the evolving future of Space the

Army needs to be concerned about.

The designation of the Air Force as

the Executive Agent for Space could

allow the Air Force to prosecute its

role in Space over those of the other

Services. The challenge faced by the

Executive Agent for Space will be to

balance the strategic, operational, and

tactical needs of all users and lessen

the concern that the Air Force will

dominate certain Space programs to

the exclusion of the other Services.

Although the Air Force may not intentionally exclude the other Services, the

cultural differences between the Air

Force Space Forces and the ground

warfighter may make the understanding of warfighter needs and the priority of those needs open to different

interpretations. To overcome the cultural differences, the Army needs to

work with the Air Force in organizations such as NSS and the Air Force

Space Command to develop their

understanding of the ground

warfighter perspective for Space support. This will require more active

Army solicitation and participation at

all levels of future development of

Space capabilities within the Air Force

Space structure. 

The results of the merger of

USSPACECOM and USSTRATCOM

roles and missions under USSTRATCOM should be of some concern to

the Army Space community. The

broad roles and missions now

assigned to USSTRATCOM lead to

the certainty that Space will no longer

have the pre-eminent hold it enjoyed

under USSPACECOM. As the

USSPACECOM Army component,

Army Space advocated the Army

warfighter needs — and USSPACECOM listened. The Army must work

closely with the USSTRATCOM staff

in advocating the Army’s role in Space,

solidifying Army missions and emphasizing a ground warfighter focus. As a

unified command, USSTRATCOM’s
50 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

cultural focus is on current capabilities

and operations, leaving future planning

for Space to other organizations within

DoD. 

The proposed change from the current Requirements Generation System to

the Joint Capabilities Integration and

Development System may be the greatest

opportunity for the Army to solidify its

future roles and missions in Space. The

Army’s transformation development to

the Objective Force should be a leading

precept in the development of the Joint

operating concept that describes how the

Joint Force commander deploys, employs,

and sustains a Joint Force. 

Correspondingly, a Joint functional

concept should, in part, reflect the objectives of TRADOC Pamphlet 525-60,

Concept for Space Operations in Support

of the Objective Force. The issue then

becomes: are the Army concepts, as written now, relevant to the Joint concept of

operations to be developed, given the

change in current military operations over

the past two years? To maintain relevancy, the Army will have to adapt its transformational and Space concepts to the

national requirements. To be able to

influence future Space, the Army will

have to develop a stronger comprehensive

concept for Space operations in support

of the Objective Force along with a supporting architecture. That architecture

must be forward looking with operational,

system and technical perspectives that

truly support the ground warfighter. In

the past, the Army has had limited success

in telling a convincing story that led to

development of future Space capabilities.

Current efforts within the Force

Development and Integration Center of

SMDC to establish a Space Planning

Process to augment and structure the current Space Integrated Concept Team will

provide the rigor and analysis necessary to

build the Army concepts and architecture

across all functional Space mission areas.

Through this effort the Army should be

able to present a comprehensive road map

for Space, embodied in the Army Space

Master Plan, that can be used to develop

Joint concepts and architectures. The

Army’s participation in and support of

the FCBs may prove crucial to its future

influence over Space. Defining needed

Army Space capabilities in support of the

Objective Force and applying them to the

FCBs may be the only way future Army

Space capabilities will be recognized.

This will require that the Army “cadre of

Space experts” participate in the development of Joint functional concepts and

integrated architectures by identifying

supporting Space capabilities to the

warfighter. 

Conclusion

The Army has had a prominent historical

role in the development and use of Space

capabilities. Many changes to Space

organization and management have been

proposed over the past few years, some of

which are now being implemented. While

these changes, for the most part, are beneficial, they are not without challenges

and should be closely watched through

their implementation. It can be expected

that as the nature of warfare continues to

change as it has in the last couple of years,

we can expect that the reliance on Space

capabilities will significantly rise. As this

occurs we will see changing emphasis,

new operational concepts, and differing

organizational structures that will be

needed to meet the changes of the future.

The Army has not only a vested interest

in the future of Space and Space management, but also a moral obligation to its

warfighters to ensure that Space continues

to evolve and meet its operational needs.

To meet this obligation, the Army must

know where it wants to go in Space,

develop the road ahead, and advocate its

concepts in every Space forum. This will

require “out-of-the-box thinking” on the

part of our Space cadre and acceptance of

new ideas and concepts in the various elements of our Space community. The

most important aspect to successfully

meet the challenges of the future is to

have a holistic approach to Space

throughout the Army. The challenge now

facing the Army is to not regress into the

development of stove-piped capabilities,

but to support and participate in all facets

of Space development to ensure future

capabilities are relevant to warfighter

needs. Army concepts and architectures

must be integrated and reflect the relevance that the Army brings to the Space

mission area.

Bill Furr serves as the plans director, G3, SMDC-West.

His professional experience includes a degree in

Geography and Environmental Science and an extensive

background in Tactical and Strategic level Intelligence. He

served on active duty (Army) for seven years before

being assigned to Director of Intelligence, Cheyenne

Mountain Air Station, where he served as the chief of

Analysis. He still holds a Reserve Commission and supports the NORAD and NORTHCOM J2, Deliberate Plans

Division. 

The Army has had a prominent historical role in

the development and use of Space capabilities.

Many changes to Space organization and 

management have been proposed over the 

past few years, some of which are now 

being implemented. 
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 51

Battle Lab (BCBL) joined the effort

and obtained general TRADOC consensus on the need by February 1997.

At the end of the 1990s, lingering

technical issues were resolved by

ASPO. With the assistance of the

BCBL and the Space and Missile

Defense Battle Laboratory (SMDBL),

a warfighter’s rapid acquisition program was initiated to obtain the first

operational units (although limited

prototypes were already in use). It

became apparent that operational use

of Grenadier BRAT would require a

Mission to smoothly connect the

national technical capability with users

in the field. The U.S. Space Command

assigned that mission to SMDC (Army

Space Command) in March 2001.

Subsequent to Sept. 11, 2001, the

planned future operational capability

of the Mission Management Center

was accelerated and around-the-clock

operations began in January 2002.

ASPO has continued to field additional devices and provide new training

equipment worldwide. Through evaluations from Operations Enduring

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the role

of Grenadier BRAT and related

devices will be shown to be vital to the

overall effort. Innovation spanned

less than a decade.

Space Innovation in the Near

Term out to 2030

Innovation in Space is progressing

at a quickening tempo with respect to

satellites. This is partly because the

same advances in materiel, electronic,

and computing technologies that are

driving changes in the rest of modern

society are driving the Space business.

The one disappointing area is the ability to launch “things” into Space. That

remains a costly, risky business with no

transformational improvements on

the horizon. The Army is a leader in

pushing requirements for future satellite innovations including Space-based

radar, Space-based infrared system,

transformal communications and

improved position/navigation capabilities. These systems will greatly benefit the warfighter and the transformation of the force.

Army’s Role

The Army has a vested interest in

helping to control the high ground,

which means that air defense concepts

already expanded to missile defense

must be expanded to control of Space.

As the examples we see from TENCAP and from the SMDBL’s Army

Space Exploitation Demonstration

Program (a white world version of

TENCAP) prove, the Army can and

does benefit from what the Air Force

and others build in the way of Space

systems.

Beyond 2030

Ray Kurzweil (a well known futurist) says that the rate of technology

acceleration is itself accelerating. For

instance, what took 100 years to develop between 1800-1900, we could now

accomplish in 50 years at today’s rate

of progress, but, because the rate of

progress is doubling every decade, we

will see 100 years of progress, at

today’s rate, in only 25 calendar years.

This could have dramatic effects on

Space innovation. The pessimistic

view of the launch problem (cost, risk)

may be gone by 2030. With that constraint removed, Space will be populated by everything from coffins to

grandmother’s “motor home” to military systems. If this happens, the high

ground will be accessible to the Army

and Army systems will operate as

freely there as they do on the ground

today. The distinction between the Air

Force and the Army could be blurred

and, who knows, we could even see an

entirely different type of combined

service force.

Summary

The Army has chosen a role that

focuses its resources on exploiting

Space capabilities. It gets a relative

bargain in the process since others

bear the research and capital costs in

developing the Space segment of

these capabilities. Despite what we

Space advocates might desire, it is a

smart role for the Army and one that

is not likely to change.

Innovation ... from Page 39

John Marrs for many years served as the Technical

Director of Army Space Command. Under the new

SMDC organization, he is part of the Office of the

Chief Scientist. His wide-ranging duties and functions have included the Army Space Exploitation

Demonstration Program, design of the ARSST and

1st Space Bn., Chair of the SMDC Spectral Imaging

IPT, and participation in many studies done by OSD,

NSSA, JFCOM, and the Army Science Board. Over

his career he has worked for TRADOC, AMC, and

FORSCOM (National Training Center Science

Advisor).

The Army did much of the developmental work on

missiles as well as communication, navigation and

imaging satellites that were the foundation for the

nation’s Space programs. 
52 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Warfighter’s Perspective ... from Page 41

Country X need to develop in order to

counter this transformational weapon system, and how much would this cost? Can

any adversary afford to bankrupt his

country to facilitate an invasion of his

neighbor? Or does he wait? Hmmm.

With such a compelling case for a

transformational capability on a weapon

system, I am amazed that we have to fight

for the Raptor’s very existence.

Unfortunately, when I’ve been asked

about the aircraft’s transformational capabilities, it is usually to compare them with

an equally transformational F-35! Why?

Because the office with the aviation

expertise analyzes aviation while the

office that looks at directed energy or land

forces looks at directed energy or land

forces — it’s what they know best, and it’s

what their analysis tools are optimized for.

Can someone in the Defense

Department assess weapon systems from

the adversary’s perspective? It’s probably

not fair for the Services to take on that

task, so we can only write papers or editorials and rhetorically ask the question.

However, since we taxpayers want to get

the best investment for our hard-earned

tax dollars, I have to ask the hard questions. How is something like the

unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV)

considered transformational because it

doesn’t have a human in it? From the

adversary’s perspective, I will ask, “What

capability/system do I need to face the

U.S. Armed Forces and their UCAVs?” It

may very well be transformational

because the United States is willing to fly

UCAVs aggressively into harm’s way

because no U.S. pilots will be at risk. Or,

if I can figure out the control-mechanism

frequency and can force the entire fleet to

crash without firing a shot, then maybe it

isn’t transformational. The adversary will

assess the UCAV’s range, payload, and

survivability to determine whether his

centers of gravity are placed at risk by this

“transformational” weapon system, and

he will determine whether or not the

UCAV is transformational.

All that being said, we have limited

resources and must use them wisely to

ensure that every dollar spent brings the

greatest return. A gun that shoots an extra

two miles may be transformational when

compared with other shorter-range guns,

but will that extra two miles change the

investment and engagement decisions of

our potential adversaries? If we can get

our arms around that analysis, then perhaps we will be on the path toward getting

the best bang for the buck. A truly transformational weapon system for our

warfighters would be one that instills so

much fear in our enemies that we can win

the next war without ever firing a shot. If

we use that logic, perhaps the F/A-22 is

truly transformational.

Courtesy of the Air & Space Power Journal. The

articles have undergone security and policy content review and have been approved for public

release IAW AFI 35-101.
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 53

of negating this combat power overmatch. We must have the ability to

repopulate the near-Space and

Space-based systems on demand to

ensure decision superiority and

dynamic, tailorable strike capability. 

Applying Effects to Space

In the years beyond 2025, our

nation faces the real possibility of

prosecuting a future “major combat

operation” in Space. This will be

a new form of warfare that future

generations of Army soldier-leaders

will need to study and develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to

fight air, land, sea, and Space systems

against a foe in Space to seize and

hold “key-terrain” or mass our collective joint combat power against an

enemy’s capability to threaten our

way of life and security. Space, like

other physical domains, has key terrain that is essential for our Space

systems to operate. Certain orbits

and specific orbit locations are key to

our freedom of maneuver in Space.

Lagrange points (places of zero

gravity near our Earth and Moon) are

key future pre-positioning areas for

Space and terrestrial forces apportioned/allocated for actions in terrestrial operations as well as operations in celestial campaigns.

Deployment of Space and terrestrial

forces from zero gravity points

would take hours rather than days

and would represent a key capability

from a nontraditional line of communication that many future adversaries would be unable to defend.

Future adversaries could deploy

Space-based weapon systems that

would be able to deny, degrade, disrupt, and destroy U.S. or coalition

Space-based capabilities. Our nation

must develop ground-, air-, sea-, and

Space-based weapon systems that

can protect our Space-based systems

and defeat those of the enemy. The

future battlefield management, information, and command control systems must consider not just using

Space-based systems to enable terrestrial operations, but consider the

requirements to conduct Space warfare. 

The more extensive a man’s knowledge of what has been done, the greater

will be his power of knowing what to

do.

— Benjamin Disraeli

Of utmost importance is the

future education of young Army

officers on the coming concepts of

Space warfare and how they as commanders will have to plan and execute lethal and non-lethal effects

through, from, and to the Space

domain. The time to begin is now. 

Application ... from Page 13

LTC Greg Palka is assigned as the Chief of

Concepts and Initiatives, Space Directorate,

SMDC Battle Lab in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

His Space experience includes: V Corp Space

Support Team Chief, Army Space G3; information

operations division chief, Space control chief,

STO Chief, and current operations division chief. 

sition, research and development positions bringing state-of-the-art technology to Army Space Support Teams and

to warfighters. And, for the first time,

it is great to see “Space veterans”

returning for their second or third

assignment in the Space field.

However, this small number can only

begin to represent the Army’s need in

the joint community and to meet Army

commanders’ requirements. 

The Army must expand its definition of “Space cadre” to include warrant officers, enlisted soldiers, and civilians. This is a complex task that will

demand that we identify positions that

require knowledge of Space systems

and demand that we figure out how the

Army is going to educate and train

those who fill the positions — oneweek course? 12-week course? Army,

AF, or Joint course? What is the right

approach for the new Intermediate

Level Education (ILE) Course? This is

not an easy project nor one that will be

implemented soon, but it is one we are

convinced we need to get right. 

Not only should the Army’s number

of Space cadre increase, but the number of soldiers, from E6 through 0-10,

who have more than a cursory understanding of Space-based capabilities

can and must grow. To do this, the

Army must invest platform time in its

school houses, build Space play into its

simulations and training exercises, and

actively participate in joint Space exercises. Through education and experience, the number of warriors who

understand more than how to “turn on

their computer,” or who turn to their

Space operations officer will grow. The

increasing number of Space-smart leaders will demand that Army Space equities and requirements are presented,

tested, and discussed in all forums.

Perhaps the most effective way is

through being exposed to rabid professionals — Space warriors — who by

their expertise and performance “sell”

Space every day. We did this in

Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring

Freedom. We did this in Operation

Iraqi Freedom. We are out there, wherever soldiers are deployed, doing it

every day.

Using Space-based assets to protect

our nation and to win its wars is reality

now, not something that might happen

in the future. The Army’s future is in

assuring we have better access to those

assets than our adversaries to theirs

through involvement of Space-smart

leaders who know more than how to

“turn on their computers” in the development and employment of Space systems that support warfighters. 

Army Space-smart leaders and

Army Space control capabilities are

indeed high payoff areas which combine to make Space a substantial current

and future contributor to overall Army

land warfighting dominance. You can

tell I like the word “Army.” And don’t

forget “dominance.”

Newcomer’s View ... from Page 5
54 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

Wild Card ... from Page 43

death choices. They cannot afford technical

research or development, and they cannot

“comparison shop.” They know they must

choose wisely the first time because there

may not be a second choice. For them, the

only collection method may be what they

can learn from open publications. The

more sophisticated groups can build on

information from open sources and confirm their conclusions with traditional collection methods. Their interest is far from

abstract.

Several truisms must be accepted in this

new world of half-wars against nontraditional adversaries. Poorer nations want to

survive. In order to do so they are offered

the Hobson’s choice of spending what

wealth they have on arms or relying on a

guardian nation to arm their people. They

are not interested in future sales, in market

share, or in the bottom line. If they do not

choose correctly from the arms necessary

to protect themselves, they will cease to

exist, or worse, be enslaved. Obviously, they

see the world from a dramatically different

perspective.

The West views military technology as a

chess game. One player creates this, the

opponent creates that to counter it, and so

on. In this rational game of give and take,

no one dies and the game goes on. Some

call this the arms race, but nobody dies in a

race. Such a sterile view of the industry

misses the point.

Analysts of arms markets from nonWestern countries or para-nations see the

armaments industry differently and

arguably more clearly than Western nations

do. They, like the United States, will determine their needs and do all within their

power and budget to acquire those necessities. Unlike the United States, they see their

existence as often nasty, brutish, and short.

They often feel they must confront the

killer at the door, rather than the economic

competitor in the pinstriped suit. It is not

surprising that poorer countries decided to

buy machine guns as soon as they could

afford them, once they saw what happened

to those who did not.

The callousness of the Western businessman who commented about a recent

technology theft, “Who cares, we’ll just

build a counter-measure,” would be incomprehensible to his counterparts in a poorer

country who bet their very existence on

successfully using proven technology in the

near term.

Those of poorer countries have a vested interest in what is available on the arms

market today, and in knowing how their

potential adversary will fight. What if their

potential adversary is the United States?

These poorer countries want to know,

simply put, how to beat the United States in

battle. To be able to surprise the U.S. military, they will try to learn more about it than

the military knows about itself. They do not

have the wherewithal to conduct massive

technical research, so they will take any

shortcut. All open sources will be exploited.

Why spend the money on research and

development if the final product is going to

be for sale or is explained on the Internet?

Why test weapons if the answers nations

seek are printed in publications that cost

only a few dollars each? Comparison tests

will be done by those governments that see

weaponry more as a commodity to be marketed than as a means of killing people.

Western powers think of long-term

strategies while poorer nations wonder how

to stop the immediate threat. They know

they are dead if they make the wrong choices, so they research information thoroughly. If they can piece together information

about the true intentions of an adversary

from what they can collect on the open

source market, they will do so. It may be the

only source they have. These are the types

of adversaries the U.S. military will confront tomorrow.

These differing perceptions of the

world — one by rich nations, the other by

poor — must be better understood. A poor

man does not care about higher technology

tomorrow if his weapon will surprise his

enemy today. To achieve this he may act in

a way contrary to what the West considers

being in his best, rational interest.

Westerners must see the world with new

eyes — their potential adversary’s eyes.

History offers many examples.

In the 1920s, for instance, a beaten

Germany, penned in by the Treaty of

Versailles, entered joint ventures with

Bofors Corp. of neutral Sweden. The

Germans had studied the published armament policies of other European nations

and had observed the soldiers occupying

their country. They had studied what would

win on a future battlefield, then set out to

get it any way they could.

Before World War II, Germany illegally

trained its army on the land of its arch-rival,

the Soviet Union. Despite open reports of

Germany’s illicit training, other nations

were too complacent to challenge this

threat. The West was thinking about longterm, rational arms races. Germany was

thinking about a blitzkrieg.

In a later example, the United States was

shocked when it was revealed that the

Vietnamese communists had routinely

spliced into U.S. telephone lines. Open

communications were compromised. These

were simple farmers who should not have

had the capability, the United States complained. The nation did not see the world

through its adversary’s eyes.

Today, are the Afghani or Iraqi government troops trained by the U.S. going to

rest assured that the West will protect

them? Did the Serbs or Muslims rely on the

United States or NATO to take action

against a vengeful adversary, or did they

take their own measures? Does anyone

doubt, however, that they are devouring

every statement and operational move we

make in our many deployments?

Every document, every communication

made by the U.S. military’s soldiers is subject to collection. Seemingly innocent communications could confirm or deny the

fears of the many groups involved in

Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo or Bosnia. How

many American soldiers realize that a TDY

order, supply form, or logistical document

could betray the military’s true intentions?

Open source information takes this operational release of information even farther.

Westerners may see no great loss when

technology is compromised because they

may never see the battlefield result of their

work. They may think abstractly of their

product as a funded program, not as something that kills someone. Their counterparts

in another, less powerful country would

face imprisonment or execution if they
Summer 2003 Army Space Journal 55

compromised hard-gathered information.

Westerners must “publish or perish.” They have a “right to know” and

a free and inquisitive press. NonWestern counterparts do not. 

Next, the collection threat to this

critical information must be studied.

Soldiers must consider who wants

what they have. Here, the intelligence

community can provide assistance.

The collection capability could be a

highly sophisticated process or a hacker who can read the Army’s e-mail. In

weighing the threat to the critical

information, the answer to the next

question, “Is the Army vulnerable?”

may be surprising. Even units with 100

percent traditional security of their

classified information have been compromised by a hemorrhage of unclassified data. Unit leaders did not tell

their soldiers what was critical to protect, and soldiers did not control bar

talk, telephone talk, or what went out

over the wire, much less what went

into the trash. After the risks are

weighed, such as collection capabilities

and reaction times, countermeasures

must be decided on.

The Army must communicate to

accomplish any mission, but it has to

remain aware of the unseen listener.

Soldiers must know what an adversary

can do. To survive, other countries will

read everything the Army writes and

listen to any conversation they can.

The Army has to see itself as others

see it.

Once they learned that the Viet

Cong had made tiny mines from discarded C-ration cans, soldiers stopped

leaving cans uncontrolled. Now, the

Army should do no less with its open

source information.

John W. Davis, a retired U.S. Army MAJ, teaches the threat portions of the Department of the

Army's Operations Security course at the Space

and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, AL.

(Article updated: From ARMY Magazine, July

l997. Copyright l997 by the Association of the

U.S. Army and reproduced by permission.)

SPC Chaun Frink, a member of Crew 3, said this event

was “adventurous and made

us use teamwork to drive, navigate and find the points.” 

This task was best accomplished using waypoints on the

PLGR. In the end, Crew 3

turned out to be the team finding the most points.

The day after the road rally,

HHC held the obstacle course

and Jeopardy contest. The

obstacle course was conducted

at the Air Force Academy’s

Jack’s Valley Training

Complex, and required the

teams to surmount 17 obstacles over the one-mile course. 

Each team took on obstacles such as rope swings, water

traverses and belly busters in a

timed circuit. Teamwork was

encouraged, and in some

cases absolutely necessary. All

the soldiers learned something

about themselves as they

pushed through the difficult

course. 

The Jeopardy! Competition

was a mental challenge that

followed the tough physical

workout of the obstacle

course. Done in the Jeopardy

model, answers were given

under 12 categories in two

rounds, and the team with the

highest score in the end won.

This game was complete with

“Daily Doubles” and a Final

Jeopardy question.

The categories covered

military history, leadership,

and a slew of operational

inquiries that challenged the

teams with both Army and

mission related questions.

Crew 2 answered the most

questions correctly. 

The next day, a Class A

uniform inspection was held to

determine the best prepared

team. This event evaluated

the preparation of the uniform

and personal appearance, and

Crew 1 came out best in this

“dress right, dress” event. As

the final event in the Soul

Survivor Challenge, the Class

A inspection wrapped up three

weeks of good-natured, competition. 

Each of the teams did very

well, excelling in one or more

of the events, but the team

that ended up with the highest

overall score, winning the

competition and becoming

HHC’s Best Crew was Crew 3,

led by SSG Steven Cato. 

Cato said, “We all enjoyed

the competition, it was a fun

change of pace, and the variety of areas tested really challenged the team.”

Cato’s crew will compete

for the 2003 Best Crew title

with the Best Crews from the

other five companies in the 1st

Satellite Control Battalion. 

The Soul Survivor challenge resulted in one Best

Crew being chosen at HHC,

but all crews shared the benefits of stronger, more cohesive

teams as a result of the intense

efforts required by the competition.

Soul Survivor ... from Page 32

CW2 Garth Hahn serves as the Operations Officer for

HHC, 1st Satellite Control Battalion. He served two

tours in Kosovo performing voice and data switching

and wide-area network management. During his 12-

year tenure as an enlisted satellite systems operatormaintainer, he held various staff and operations positions in tactical and strategic satellite stations. He

also serves as unit reporter. 
56 Army Space Journal Summer 2003

from now. Waiting to make a decision only

forces a further search and reconfirmation of

information. Therefore, all the information

a UA commander needs to make a decision

must already have been presented and understood — before the requirement for a decision has emerged!

Interestingly, the very mini-culture we

have developed among the Space operations

officer corps makes the FA 40 a solid match

to the rapid decisive operational construct.

How many of us have had to push our Space

operations knowledge into the cognition of

the commander? I am reminded of the last

line of the article by our senior FA 40 in a

previous issue of the ASJ (Vol. 1, No. 4)

that stated that Space officers need to

“advertise, advertise, advertise.” It is implicit in the FA 40 culture to translate very technical data into knowledge, to know when the

commander’s decision process can benefit

from that knowledge, and to “push” that

knowledge without waiting for a “pull.”

Finding Three: The Location of Space Expertise

in the Unit of Action Staff

The first experimental unit of action

(brigade-size) staff was organized into five

cells. The cell structure was an outcome of

a knowledge object workshop held at the

Fort Leavenworth BCBL . The workshop

developed 246 knowledge objects, a number

of which are Space focused. That list may

need to be revisited numerous times over the

course of the BCBL series of experiments.

(I would suggest that Space is currently

underrepresented in the knowledge object

list.) These knowledge objects were then

divided into the roles and responsibilities of

the five cells. There were numerous objects

considered to be shared, overlapping, and

specific to cells.

An initial take on the cell divisions would

indicate that the Space operations expertise

should reside in the information operations

cell. I would argue, however, that Space

operations expertise must reside in the Fires

and Effects Cell. For those not familiar with

effects-based operations, refer to the article

by GEN B.B. Bell in ASJ Vol. 1, No. 3 (Fall

2002). The trained Space operations officer

knows the pillars of military Space and how

to produce a desired effect on the battlefield.

It does not take a leap of the imagination to

understand how, in 2015, a Space officer in

the Effects Coordination Cell would react to

an effects task order that stated: “Enemy

scouts must be neither able to alert their

main body of our approach nor bring precision long-range indirect fires to bear on our

forces penetrating their battle zone.”

What’s Next?

The Fort Leavenworth Battle Command

Battle Laboratory Experiment series will

continue until the design of the UA staff is

resolved and refined. The next experiment is

tentatively scheduled for Fall ’03. FA 40 officers are maintaining an experienced presence, via FDIC and the SMDC-BL, to

ensure our proponency role in UA staff

design decisions. In terms of influencing the

list of knowledge objects essential to the

Objective Force UA staff, our O6 population will participate in studies at the Army

War College as well as complete a pending

online survey with their recommendations.

Final Thoughts

I will be personally involved in future

experiments as well as a revisit to the knowledge object identification and distribution. I

believe it is clear that stakeholder participation in the knowledge object process will

define the Objective Force roles in the operation and information career field. The further opening of the debate to Army Space

professionals operating at the tip of the

“sphere” will, in my opinion, ensure we provide the best support possible to the

Objective Force.

Experiments ... from Page 17

MAJ John Graham is assigned to the Carnegie Mellon

University- Department of Computer Science and is conducting research on the UA Battle Command. His Space assignments include: OIC, Space Control Electronic Warfare

Detachment, U.S Army Space and Missile Defense Command;

Director, Space Intelligence & Operations Courses; and

Missile Officer/Command Center Instructor, North American

Aerospace Defense Command.

Staff Task Characteristics

Routine/ “Art”/

Automatable Tacit

X X

“CF S-3 Air” CF Space Ops

The tasks of the notional Career Field S-3 Air are defined by a high proportion of heuristics, while the tasks of the Career Field Space Operations

are defined by a high proportion of tacit knowledge and “art.”

Figure 1

Cell structure resulting from initial knowledge object distribution workshop conducted at the Fort Leavenworth

BCBL. The location of Space operations expertise will

depend on the knowledge object identification and distribution.

Figure 2
“There are some spectacular examples from Operation Iraqi

Freedom, where we have been able to achieve objectives that five

years ago ... would have seemed impossible.”

— Roberta Lenczowski,

NIMA Executive Director

“The synergy with air, land and sea forces and our ability to

control the battle space and seize the high ground is devastating.” 

— Air Force MG Franklin J. "Judd" Blaisdell, 

director of space operations and integration.
UPCOMING JOURNAL THEMES

SPECIAL EDITION — “Space: Focus on Operations”

Fall 2003 — “Space Technology — Where is it Leading Ground Forces?”

Winter 2004 — “The Army in Joint and Multi-National Space Operations”

Spring 2004 — “Space Executive Agency — Where does the Army fit in?”

“If you ask what was the difference between Iraq’s army and America’s

army, the big difference was satellites, and its technology you don’t even

notice.”

— John Pike, defense analyst

GlobalSecurity.org