est alternative. In other cases, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) mightdominate. In all cases, planners strive to produce the greatest military effectby integrating space systems with atmospheric and terrestrial systems. Suchintegration has the crucial added benefit of giving the United States aunique global capability—a monopoly that no other group, nation, orgroup of nations can presently match.Whether developing space ISR, space combat power, or both, the UnitedStates obviously needs to build a future space force that integrates leadingedgecapabilities with the rest of the joint team. Postdeployment system integrationis more difficult and far more expensive than the a priori integrationof systems that exist only on paper or in computer-aided design / computeraidedmanufacturing programs. Consequently, “the present” is always thetime to start considering integration strategies for proposed and postulatedspace-based combat systems. 4 Lessons learned from past integration of spacebasedISR systems should inform future integration strategies for space-basedcombat systems.Integration Pathways from the PastThe three solid integration pathways in the figure represent capabilitiescurrently available to commanders. These integrations enable precision targeting,battle damage assessments, ISR cueing from one system to another,and all the capabilities that encompass the United States’ twentieth-centurymilitary arsenal.Pathway One: <strong>Air</strong>-/Earth-Based Combat Systems with <strong>Air</strong>-/Earth-Based ISR SystemsCombat “systems” have existed as long as combat has. ISR systems, the mostancient of which include visual sightings, verbal communication, standardbearers, smoke signals, and flags, entered the battlefield shortly thereafter—ifnot concurrently. When ISR and combat systems took to the air, attempts tointegrate them with their earthbound manifestations became imperative.Blitzkrieg serves as a useful example of pre-space-age air/Earth integrationthat provided tremendous military utility. These past integration initiativesrepresent useful analogies for future space/air and space/ground integrationthat we cannot ignore.Pathway Two: <strong>Air</strong>-/Earth-Based ISR Systems with <strong>Space</strong>-Based ISR SystemsNetworks, adaptability, and access are moving toward depriving space of theunique capabilities that operating from the high ground once afforded.Networks of all kinds—air defense, command and control, and remotesensing (as well as networks of networks)—have become the new centers ofstrategic value. Rapidly expanding networks, growing faster and broader bythe day, generate incredible wealth and national power. They have becomedominant features of societies, economics, politics, and militaries. 520
One can no longer depend only on space systems to provide the onceunique perspective of space’s orbital heights. In the commercial communicationsbusiness, terrestrially based cellular networks and fiber optics helpeddrive Iridium, a satellite-based system, into bankruptcy. Cellular networksand fiber optics will continue to dominate, using robust private investmentto match satellite communications, advance for advance. Given their large lead,surface-based communications will likely keep their lead for a long time.In the same way, UAVs, high-altitude airships, and unattended groundsensors are making rapid progress in their support of remote sensing andpersistent surveillance. 6 These alternative systems adapt to the needs of abattlespace and offer some means of replacing our space architecture. Activitiesformerly conducted only from the high ground of space now takeplace in the atmosphere. When technological advances made all this a reality,space ceded the high ground.With regard to access, one remembers that the Soviets shot down the U-2piloted by Francis Gary <strong>Power</strong>s as he attempted to reconnoiter areas forwhich we had no detailed space coverage. Today, satellites provide that informationwithout putting human beings in harm’s way. One still encounterslimitations to the details detectable via space systems, but only some ofthe same challenges apply to airborne or ground systems.This is not to say that commanding space is unimportant. The absolutevalue of space-based ISR systems, unique and not easily replaced, is not theissue. Their relative value, however, appears to be shifting. <strong>Space</strong> will remainone of the places from which we collect information, but in the future wewill find solutions to our remote-sensing problems by netting space systemswith both air and ground systems—even subterranean systems. 7 Networks ofspace and airborne and terrestrial sensors now overshadow the importanceof the high ground of space.Pathway Three: <strong>Air</strong>-/Earth-Based Combat Systems with <strong>Space</strong>-Based ISR SystemsThe coupling of the Joint Direct Attack Munition with the global positioningsystem (GPS), a fertile example of this pathway, is well known—so muchso that it does not require detailed treatment here. The deployment ofspace-based GPS provided revolutionary advancements in terrestrial andaerial military power projection and precision. Ultimately, the GPS does notproduce combat power but enables its projection, making it worthy of inclusionin this examination of space-based ISR systems. Since the US militaryrelies so heavily on the GPS, it places a priority on the robustness of thesystem. 8 The Department of Defense is exploring methods of GPS navigationbased on terrestrial and airborne systems as an alternative to reinforcingGPS space-based assets.The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), for example,has begun exploring the use of airborne pseudosatellites to overpower GPSjammers and the use of navigation via signals of opportunity to “provide theUS warfighter with the ability to geo-locate and navigate effectively when21
- Page 2 and 3: Chief of Staff, US Air ForceGen T.
- Page 4 and 5: PIREPsJoint Airspace Management and
- Page 6 and 7: APJInterdependenceKey to Our Common
- Page 8 and 9: 6 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL FALL 20
- Page 10 and 11: APJLT COL PAUL D. B ERG , USAF, CHI
- Page 12 and 13: 10 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL FALL 2
- Page 14 and 15: ASPJLT COL PAUL D. B ERG , USAF, CH
- Page 16 and 17: True to form, the Air Force has res
- Page 18 and 19: Red Flag Still Matters—After AllT
- Page 20 and 21: Integration of Space-BasedCombat Sy
- Page 25 and 26: power projection, but advances in a
- Page 27 and 28: 3. Report of the Commission to Asse
- Page 29 and 30: PIREP 27ized, programmed, funded, a
- Page 31 and 32: PIREP 29creation of ACMs. One antic
- Page 33 and 34: PIREP 31Link 16 and Joint Airspace
- Page 35 and 36: PIREP 33Missile Defense Systems, th
- Page 37 and 38: CADRE’s Professional EducationOpp
- Page 39 and 40: ASPJQuick-LookThe Air Force Needs N
- Page 41 and 42: QUICK-LOOK 39system should become a
- Page 43 and 44: APJThe Air Force’s New Ground War
- Page 45 and 46: THE AIR FORCE’S NEW GROUND WAR 43
- Page 47 and 48: THE AIR FORCE’S NEW GROUND WAR 45
- Page 49 and 50: THE AIR FORCE’S NEW GROUND WAR 47
- Page 51 and 52: THE AIR FORCE’S NEW GROUND WAR 49
- Page 53 and 54: THE AIR FORCE’S NEW GROUND WAR 51
- Page 55 and 56: New USAF Doctrine PublicationAir Fo
- Page 57 and 58: Counterinsurgency AirpowerAir-Groun
- Page 59 and 60: COUNTERINSURGENCY AIRPOWER 57ticula
- Page 61 and 62: COUNTERINSURGENCY AIRPOWER 59and Ai
- Page 63 and 64: COUNTERINSURGENCY AIRPOWER 61The af
- Page 65 and 66: COUNTERINSURGENCY AIRPOWER 63squadr
- Page 67 and 68: ASPJQuick-LookA New Operational Ass
- Page 69 and 70: QUICK-LOOK 67den on the OAT. First,
- Page 71 and 72: Filling the Stealth Gap and Enhanci
- Page 73 and 74:
FILLING THE STEALTH GAP 71Each of t
- Page 75 and 76:
FILLING THE STEALTH GAP 73the US wa
- Page 77 and 78:
FILLING THE STEALTH GAP 75mit the F
- Page 79 and 80:
Space PowerAn Ill-Suited SpaceStrat
- Page 81 and 82:
SPACE POWER 79by using a more encom
- Page 83 and 84:
SPACE POWER 81role of offensive and
- Page 85 and 86:
SPACE POWER 83achieve supremacy in
- Page 87 and 88:
Military TransformationEnds,Ways, a
- Page 89 and 90:
MILITARY TRANSFORMATION 87to organi
- Page 91 and 92:
MILITARY TRANSFORMATION 89course, w
- Page 93 and 94:
MILITARY TRANSFORMATION 91mind-set
- Page 95 and 96:
MILITARY TRANSFORMATION 93sponding
- Page 97 and 98:
NOTAM 95The document’s authors ha
- Page 99 and 100:
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATION
- Page 101 and 102:
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATION
- Page 103 and 104:
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATION
- Page 105 and 106:
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATION
- Page 107 and 108:
MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATION
- Page 109 and 110:
ASPJQuick-LookThe Nature of Close A
- Page 111 and 112:
QUICK-LOOK 109CAS missions. The pub
- Page 113 and 114:
Clausewitz and the Falkland Islands
- Page 115 and 116:
CLAUSEWITZ AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
- Page 117 and 118:
CLAUSEWITZ AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
- Page 119 and 120:
CLAUSEWITZ AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
- Page 121 and 122:
CLAUSEWITZ AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
- Page 123 and 124:
BOOK REVIEWS 121whose contributions
- Page 125 and 126:
BOOK REVIEWS 123Franco: Soldier, Co
- Page 127 and 128:
APJAir and Space Power Journal, the
- Page 129 and 130:
CONTRIBUTORS 127Col Howard D. “Da
- Page 131:
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDGen John A.