Schriever Wargame 2010 - Air Force Space Command

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Schriever Wargame 2010 The Schriever Challenge – Keep the Walls Down Maj Sam Baxter, USAF, Reservist Special Programs Division Commander’s Action Group, Air Force Space Command Peterson AFB, Colorado Capt Nicole O’Neal, USAF Special Programs Division, Air Force Space Command Peterson AFB, Colorado ear down this wall!” The declaration by former “TPresident Ronald Reagan foretold the end of the Cold War—a war impacted by the foresight of General Bernard Schriever in space’s ability to influence the fight. At Schriever Wargame 2010 (SW 10), a game named after the “space game-changer,” one could not escape the organizational walls that came crashing down. For a drop in the budget bucket, approximately 550 military and civilian space and cyber experts representing more than 30 agencies across the Department of Defense (DoD), intelligence community (IC) and civil sectors, as well as, the countries of Australia, Canada, and Great Britain came together in the unified pursuit of getting a glimpse of future warfare in unchartered domains. 1 Within the historic halls of the Red Flag building at Nellis AFB, Nevada, ideas were shared, thoughts generated and insights garnered in a nonattribution environment—the original objectives Col Richard “Moody” Suter sought after when this “air game-changer” sold the idea of Red Flag to Air Force brass. 2 Unfortunately, this unencumbered union of space and cyber brainpower is only gathered together for one week, every two years. What if instead a new Schriever series is born, not just the wargame series, but a “Schriever Challenge” series in which the coalition of space and cyber willing are brought together to focus on the toughest of today’s problems? What if bureaucratic walls were to fall to make into reality what is found to be game-changing in a wargame? What if government fiefdoms were set aside and synergies were created between organizations to solve these challenges? The Challenge Concept The concept of posing challenging questions to expand the realm of the possible is not new. Charles Lindberg crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 1927 for a $25,000 Orteig Prize and in 2004, Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne crossed the boundary of space for a $10 million X-Prize win that may prove him to be the “modern space game-changer.” 3, 4 Nor is the concept unfamiliar to government. In line with challenging people and technology, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has brought the brightest minds together for their Grand Challenges for driverless vehicles. Recently DARPA expanded the idea to the 2009 Network Challenge in which a Massachusetts Institute of Technology team was rewarded for the fastest location discovery of 10 balloons simultaneously released across the US—in an amazing nine hours. 5 Even the US Air Force’s chief scientist recently issued a series of “grand challenge” problems, not competition based, but technologically gamechanging, to drive the research community in “Technology Horizons - A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology During 2010-2030.” 6 What is new with this concept is the unleashing of wargame intellect normally focused on strategic quandaries onto problems that keep senior leaders across the government awake at night—taking a cue from William Shakespeare to “let slip the dogs of war” on today’s challenges. 7 Imagine taking the impressive Rolodex the Space Innovation and Development Center (SIDC) uses to gather wargame participants and employing this talent pool towards our nation’s toughest space and cyber challenges. Let’s modify the wargame to address issues currently facing our Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines that could potentially cut research and development time, save money, and ultimately American and coalition lives. As the Schriever Wargame is held every two years, we propose bringing together the Schriever talent on a regular basis by using the “off-year” to focus on a Schriever Challenge. Similar to the preparation sessions used to put together the wargame, the same could be done for a challenge, in which participants regularly gather together to research for the main event. Similar to the Air Force Space Command issuance of wargame objectives for participants to work through, challenges can be issued to be labored on. The beauty of the Schriever Wargame is the SIDC creates an environment by which the 500+ professionals can come together and make an immediate impact without the need for a formal process. The typical ways by which organizations come together is void in Schriever vocabulary: tiger team, working group, steering group, board, council, committee, commission, and so forth. Instead the SIDC’s address book is intertwined to address the wargame crisis of the day, unencumbered by bureaucracy, and challenged to find a way to integrate interweaving organizational capabilities and knowledge to create the ultimate synergistic effects. The Schriever Challenge Space and cyberspace capabilities continue to shape the world’s approach to warfare. They are embedded in an increasingly diverse arsenal of modern weaponry and are threaded throughout warfighting networks. When integrated, space and cyberspace operation will become an even more powerful force multiplier. 8 ~ Lt Gen Larry D. James, Schriever V Wargame: The Boundaries of Space and Cyberspace 41 High Frontier
The Schriever Challenge needs to cut across government agencies by tackling problems in large enough scale that people from multiple agencies and nations cannot wait to start making a difference. Space protection and cyber defense are great examples in which no agency or nation wants to imagine a day without space or cyberspace’s influence—GPS, DirecTV, or free navigation of the Internet. But, these issues are not going to be solved in a short time span, so a challenge needs to be a subset to the larger problem. Akin to the wargame, the problem is broken into individual cells to be worked on and periodically the cells come together to look at the problem holistically in a continuous feedback loop. Also, the Schriever Challenge needs to force imagination use and be willing to look at problems differently than current and past efforts. An example Schriever Challenge: One issue many organizations have studied is how the nation can move from object tracking to true space situational awareness (SSA)—including the sharing of disparate data between the IC, DoD, allies, and industry. The problem is partly looked at as a sensor problem, or the lack thereof, as well as a sharing problem between those with the sensors. The challenge could be to study the problem from an information technology (IT) or cyber perspective. For example, can the government take an IT lesson from industry in how business information is openly shared securely among different competing companies, like in supply chain management, to find better ways to share satellite data for improved situation awareness in space? So, one cell would be composed of supply chain management experts, like Dell and FedEx, with government experts who understand how SSA data currently flows on the space surveillance network to come up with a hybrid way of moving SSA data. Another cell could leverage the financial market IT experts for a lesson in security and open architectures. From one’s laptop an individual can use their Internet browser to access their financial account to buy or sell a stock, executed by their institution’s corporate network that has access to the larger market clearinghouse networks—all in seconds, securely, yet in an open environment in which all parties have complete trust, otherwise money would not be risked. Could insights be garnered into ways satellite information can be similarly shared in an open, secure, trusted environment? An industry cell composed of fellow satellite flyers like DirecTV, Iridium, Sirius Radio, and others, could discuss how to facilitate such a “satellite information clearinghouse” with the government. A higher classification cell could be composed of the IC, DoD, and cleared industry companies to discuss ways to more effectively share data—both within current architecture schemes and by transforming old government ways of doing business to embrace the latest lessons from industry. For example, a data-mining lesson from Amazon in how they automatically recommend books could be used to potentially recommend ways to more effectively sift databases to better predict potential future collisions. An allied cell could discuss better ways to share data with our partners, while a legislative/ policy cell could investigate what needs to be altered to enable the change. When it comes to preventing future satellite collisions, can the nation afford not to try ideas outside established thinking, such as leveraging supply chain management, financial markets, or buying books? Insights garnered can be used to feed current programs of record (POR), a new POR, a future Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD), a Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Program (TENCAP), or inspire a company’s independent research and development. The Cyber Challenge: In the 50+ years since the launching of Sputnik, the space domain is characterized as “congested, competitive, and contested.” 9 This description is even more fitting for cyberspace, the recent game-changer. Where a limited number of nations operate in space, the world operates in cyberspace. Where a handful of government agencies operate satellites, anyone can operate a keyboard. And anyone can use that keyboard to attack the US—nation, non-state actor, and hacker alike. The job of the cyber warrior is to battle back, not with brawn or bombs, but with intellect. And when every agency needs a legion of cyber warriors to defend networks and data, efficiencies must be found. Cyber has every government fiefdom contending for resources and until lately, had no consolidated voice. The standup of US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and the unification of cyber efforts across the services is a first step in wrapping arms around this interconnected domain. Cyber’s interrelationship with intelligence is signified by having the USCYBER- COM commander dual-hatted as the director of the National Security Agency, which could potentially yield a symphony of concerted efforts for the military and intelligence cyberspace warriors. Maybe from this environment of interagency cooperation, future Schriever Challenges can be used to further break down cyber walls—not just within the military, but in civil and industry sectors as well. USCYBERCOM is charged with only defending the cyber domain, although its impact can be felt in all domains—air, land, sea, and space. To understand the nth order cyber effects to other domains, such as when network defense is broken, conversations need to occur by people who speak different “domain languages,” such as found during the wargame. A Schriever Challenge can be used to integrate these domains even closer—ever more important in today’s joint fight. To enable this, cells should be a matrix of thinking warriors from the various communities: space, cyber, air, intelligence, acquisition, and so forth, to confront tough problems in nimble ways by employing their domain knowledge and capabilities to create synergistic effects previously unimaginable. The Schriever Challenge Rules As the wargame comes with a basic set of rules on how the game is to be played, so should a Schriever Challenge. First, participants should be required to leave behind their organizational affiliations, their agendas, their rank, and titles as they work on a Schriever Challenge—similar to the ideals of the Schriever Wargame. If Uncle Sam is to take any lesson and turn it into a solution, he needs an open mind to glean insights not just from other government agencies, but industry as well, especially in the cyber arena where industry is continually pushing into new frontiers. A similar second rule is the nation High Frontier 42
Page 1 and 2: INSIDE: Schriever Wargame 2010: Tho
Page 3 and 4: Introduction General C. Robert Kehl
Page 5 and 6: In the confused aftermath of a coor
Page 7 and 8: ing—by the speed in which situati
Page 9 and 10: informational, military, economic s
Page 11 and 12: Subject matter experts from industr
Page 13 and 14: Senior Leader Perspective Schriever
Page 15 and 16: Given the spectrum of effects achie
Page 17 and 18: Senior Leader Perspective Schriever
Page 19 and 20: It takes far more intellectual hors
Page 21 and 22: A factor related to economies of sc
Page 23 and 24: Senior Leader Perspective Beyond Sc
Page 25 and 26: While we did introduce cyberspace i
Page 27 and 28: Senior Leader Perspective Flight Su
Page 29 and 30: Successful people are always lookin
Page 31 and 32: Senior Leader Perspective Effects F
Page 33 and 34: ing the luxury of being located tog
Page 35 and 36: Senior Leader Perspective National
Page 37 and 38: are costly and scarce; dependent on
Page 39 and 40: Schriever Wargame 2010 Science Supp
Page 41: may be willing to host such sensors
Page 45 and 46: Industry Perspective A Comprehensiv
Page 47 and 48: Dynamic, Multi-Layered, Defense-in-
Page 49 and 50: Industry Perspective When the Futur
Page 51 and 52: of the world. Sticking with a Cold
Page 53 and 54: The two problems with the current m
Page 55 and 56: Book Review National Security Space

Schriever Wargame 2010 - Air Force Space Command

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?