“We drew very bright lines between them.”īut the lines between government and commercial could become more blurred if DoD starts buying more commercial services, Guetlein said. “When we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was clear to us what was Title 10, Title 50 what was commercial, what was allied,” he said. Guetlein said there is an ongoing discussion about how DoD should operate with commercial space systems during a conflict.
“We’re all aware here that the United States no longer operates in a benign environment,” so the Space Force needs a “robust training infrastructure with models, simulations and visualization tools that allow commanders to look at a problem and actually make decisions in a timely manner.” Sherman Johns, director of space strategy at SAIC, said the Space Force also needs modern technologies to train satellite operators for space warfare and to test systems for how they would perform under attack.Īll that is now achievable with digital engineering,” he said.
Once you start “running vignettes with engineers, it’s amazing the kind of innovation that they can come up with and design into the system,” he said. “Classically, the engineers that were designing space systems weren’t thinking too much about what kind of resiliency features I need to have.” “I would offer that industry’s role is to let the engineers start thinking that way,” he said. So the traditional methods of building satellites for uncontested operations no longer apply. “I think we’ve all recognized that freedom of action is under threat,” he said. And they build that into their acquisition process.” If you’re going to get into a fight, you’re accounting for losses. How that approach could apply to space is “kind of danced around a lot,” he said. “Are we reconstituting from on orbit? Or are we going to reconstitute on the ground and have that capability ready?”Įberhardt noted that in air warfare strategy, it’s assumed that some aircraft will be lost. “That’s totally unacceptable.” If a satellite is taken out by an adversary, how can DoD replace that asset quickly, Eberhardt asked. And it would take you two years to reconstitute a satellite,” he said.
“We used to play those war games where you looked at reconstitution. But mission resilience is ensuring that objectives can be accomplished even if some satellites are lost. “Are you really trying to get asset resiliency or are you trying to get mission resiliency?”Īsset resilience in this case is protecting the actual satellites. “It depends on what you’re trying to do,” he said. There is some confusion across the industry on what DoD means by resilience, said Bryan “Stu” Eberhardt, senior director of global sales and marketing at Boeing Space & Security. space systems also needs to leverage technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning so they can autonomously defend against attacks, he said. “Maneuver is becoming increasingly more important, as well as all the logistics and supply chains that are going to support any sort of response.” To ensure satellites networks can overcome cyber attacks and other threats DoD will have to change how it deploy and equips satellites, Hernandez-Baquero said.
military’s global networks that depend on space systems have to be able to face “stressing scenarios like the defense of Taiwan.” “The doctrine today for space superiority is basically having freedom of action and denying the adversary that freedom of action,” he said. “The dialogue that we should have is on how do we achieve that,” said Erich Hernandez-Baquero, executive director at Raytheon Intelligence & Space. When the military talks about space superiority, it’s not about conquering actual sectors of the space domain but ensuring that satellites can provide capabilities, such as communications, navigation, and intelligence to military forces on the ground. Michael Guetlein, commander of the Space Systems Command, who noted that the topic of space superiority was rarely discussed in public up until recently and is now a top concern for the U.S. The executives spoke at a panel discussion moderated by Lt.
0 kommentar(er)
