Schriever Wargame 2010 - Air Force Space Command

A factor related to economies of scale is the consideration of
economies of geography. A global constellation, whether low
Earth orbital or geostationary, will provide coverage of broad
areas that may or may not align with the geographical interests
of its user base. Economies of geography may relate to the
capacity of space assets being optimized in all of their geographic
areas of operation, and may extend to the provision of anchor
station services from one partner to another. It would be fair to
say that a global constellation that serves a group of European
partners might not achieve such economies of geography (with
some areas of operation being highly contended and others being
underutilized); whereas a group of users whose interests are
spread across the areas of coverage may take far better advantage
of the full extent of the space capability.
Cooperation tends to be more effective when there is some level
of convergence of the strategic interests of the partner nations.
Such convergence may mean that there is greater responsiveness
to changing requirements. Real partnerships in space need to be
based around a model of trust and mutual support, in which the
burden of ownership is shared but is not simply contractual and
inflexible. Whereas convergence of interest may at times create
situations in which there is competition for scarce assets (i.e.,
when these similar interests bring the partners to the same location
at the same time in response to a situation), a partnership
based upon trust and strategic convergence should facilitate a reasonable
outcome in the management of priorities.
Another advantage of cooperation in space, as in cyber, is
that such arrangements mean that multiple nations are dependent
upon shared systems, are responsive to other partners’ needs, and
comply with uniform codes of behavior. Whereas space is often
referred to as the ‘commons,’ in such cooperative situations these
shared systems truly are a commons. Together with more incidental
situations of entanglement (e.g., when services are shared
on a commercial bearer), these common systems create a real potential
for deterrence and stability.
Having said that, with each nation having different approaches
to how it manages its dependencies upon space capabilities
in contingencies, there is the real possibility that the impact of
degradation, contention, or unavailability of space assets may be
different for each partner. This may then lead to a level of ‘disentanglement,’
in which the partners have different positions or
desired responses to a common problem.
As space capabilities typically represent segments in end-toend
systems, the benefits of a space partnership in isolation may
be limited. There are considerable benefits and synergies that
may be exploited with broader existing arrangements in areas
such as information exchange, cyber defense, communications,
and interoperability.
Australia currently is involved in space-related cooperation
with our allies across a number of lines, including the WGS partnership
and exchange of narrowband satellite communications,
as well as access to the products of other satellite systems. Additionally,
the 2009 Defence White Paper recognized Australia’s
need for a synthetic aperture radar satellite capability, as well as
improved space situational awareness. Given the benefits I have
described, there is a strong presumption that new capabilities in
these areas should be developed within a cooperative framework.
Challenges
In developing the future space arrangements, our levels of cooperation
could exist along a continuum from sharing information
to shared systems. There is a high level of uncertainty about
how shared systems should be managed; nevertheless there seems
to be a general agreement between the close allies on a concept
in which the space partnership starts with modest steps, but on a
path that leads towards an objective situation that might offer far
greater benefits.
Given the sort of discussions and mutually beneficial activities
we already undertake at the Schriever Wargames, it could be
said that we are already on this path. However there are substantial
further steps we could be taking, such as the creation of
the Combined Space Operations Center (CSpOC). The CSpOC
might begin as a virtual center, enabling greater integration of our
national space operations centers to share situational awareness
and other mutually beneficial data, whilst maintaining protection
of national information.
Building upon this framework could include improvements in
the way space assets are utilized in terms of mutual support and
tasking. An ultimate objective may be the standing up of an allied
task force commander for space, who either manages coalition
space assets or is assigned them as required by national authorities.
If we assume the existence of an allied space task force commander
in future, as indeed is integral to the Schriever Wargame,
we experience the real challenges that we need to address to make
such an approach work. Each nation has policies, laws, interpretations
of laws, and rules of engagement. Their differentiation
across the allied partners can be managed if we are in a predictable
environment.
However, they become problematic in situations that involve
unexpected events and a highly dynamic environment. In such
situations, each nation’s interests and equities cannot be resolved
as quickly as decisions need to be made.
Additionally, there is the possibility that in certain contingencies,
the partner nations might not have consensus and there then
becomes a difference between the steady state coalition and the
coalition in a particular contingency. There has been some discussion
that the steady state arrangement should be an alliance,
although the term alliance can have specific implications or interpretations
that need to be considered. Whether it is called an
alliance or some other term, the partnership may evolve with an
understanding by the member nations of the respective standing
commitments to mutual support as they relate to space. Coalitions
might be a better reference to temporal arrangements, including
the invitation of additional nations into partnership arrangements
as circumstances arise.
Our biggest challenge will be for national equities and interests
to support the timely and appropriate decisions made by an
allied space commander, rather than being an obstacle to such
decision-making. I expect that we can overcome this quandary
through comprehensive deliberate planning that effectively provides
some level of national pre-clearance of decisions under certain
conditions. It is too late to embark on the planning journey
as events unfold.
As there is the very real prospect of hasty decisions leading to
High Frontier 20