US Army Use Of Space-Based Systems AUTHOR Major Donald W. Evans, USA CSC 1990 SUBJECT AREA Intelligence EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: US ARMY USE OF SPACE-BASED SYSTEMS THESIS: In response to evolving technological and world developments the US Army will have an expanding need for space-based systems in the future. BACKGROUND: The 1957 Russian Sputnik I success put real impetus into the US space development program--both civilian and military. Although many viable programs became part of the civilian NASA effort, the military projects produced many space-based operational benefits. Advanced technology applied in space enhanced our capabilities in world-wide surveillance, communication, navigation, weather tracking and predicting, attack warning, and command and control. Until October 1985 all three Services developed their own space programs, and their own control organizations. Then the US Space Command consolidated the needed Joint Command operations and began functioning as a Unified Command supporting the other CinC's. The most glorified aspects in the military sphere of space has been the surveillance capabilities in PHOTINT, SIGINT, and attack warning. Discussion in the civilian world concerning those classified surveillance system successes is limited to the logical, astute assumptions by some authors. Such beliefs draw from information on other known assets and technological breakthroughs. Many of the developing space-based capabilities can significantly enhance the Army's ability to do its business: deter, detour or defeat an enemy. The Army as the final retainer of land must be actively involved in the direction of the national security side of the space program. CONCLUSION: The Army should not rely on the other Services to provide for Army unique interests within the space program. Besides the enlargement of the Army's representation in the USSPACECOM at Peterson AFB, there should be more Army-wide awareness and formal education programs for planners and commanders. The Army must gain the maximum benefit from space-based systems. US ARMY USE OF SPACE-BASED SYSTEMS OUTLINE Thesis: In response to evolving technological and world developments the US Army will have an expanding need for space-based systems in the future. I. Historical developments A. Technological advances B. Early satellite uses II. Current space functions and needs of the Army A. Intelligence (PHOTINT, SIGINT, threat warning) B. Communications C. Navigation III. Controlling agencies IV. Trends--the Army's future needs V. Education of Army officers on space systems integration US ARMY USE OF SPACE-BASED SYSTEMS The real national emphasis and social pressure for a US space program came soon after the 4 October 1957 launch of the 184-pound Sputnik I by the Soviet Union. There was in fact a slow program build well before then by the US Army and other Services. In response to evolving technological and world developments the US Army will have an expanding need for space-based systems in the future. HISTORY: Shortly before US involvement in WWII, Dr. Robert Goddard, the early American developer of rocketry, tried to interest the US military in rocketry's future applications. He was generally turned down until interest increased at the end of the war with the German V-2 use of rocketry in Europe. The Army began serious research and development with the added help of Wernher von Braun and over a hundred other German rocket scientists at Ft Bliss, Texas. Primarily interest was in long-range artillery. In 1947 with the creation of the Department of Defense (DoD) the efforts of all three Services came under the supervision of the DoD Research and Development (R&D) Board with the Air Force taking a major role. The developmental emphasis centered on weather surveillance by satellites. President Eisenhower wished to emphasize the use of space for peaceful ends, but he certainly recognized the requirements of the military in the face of Russia's closed-society military development. The US military role was simply down-played. NASA became the civilian side of space development beginning in July 1958 and took over a large portion of space activities from the military. The military still worked the defense security programs, while the civilian project was primarily the Vanguard.(2:1-6) After the October 1957 launch of Sputnik I, the pressure for US space success increased tremendously when the first Vanguard rocket blew up before getting airborne: Congress and the American public demanded reassurance. . and action. To restore confidence at home and prestige abroad the administration directed the Army to proceed with von Braun's Project Orbiter. On 31 January 1958, the Army's Jupiter rocket (with a solid-propellant fourth stage giving the launch vehicle the name Juno) placed the Explorer I satellite into Earth orbit. The US military was in space to stay, and the Army. . .at least initially. . .was in the forefront. (2:6) NASA took over the Navy Vanguard Project, the Army launch vehicle program (Redstone Arsenal) under Dr. von Braun, and the Army Explorer satellite program (Pasadena, CA). This left the Air Force as the main player in the military space program. NASA received the bulk of the funding until the lunar touchdown success by Neil Armstrong in July 1969. After that, as NASA funding diminished, national security requirements increased the DoD space program in the face of Soviet threat expansion. Military space systems development continuously increased (as NASA decreased) in surveillance, communications, navigation, weather and missile attack warning. The future Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) also will depend heavily on the funding of space-based systems if it is to continue with either R & D or even follow-on deployment (full or partial). (2:7-13) Key high ground always played a critical role in military confrontations throughout history. Now space platforms may well provide that same key advantage. High ground aided communications (visual and electronic) in the past, high points helped guide units in navigating, and provided the commander better fire positions in both offense and defense. Von Clausewitz noted it offered the commander advantage in tactical strength, protection from enemy access and a wider view of the battle ground. Space platforms will be the "new high ground," as Karas noted in his book (5:title), and as Milton noted in his article (6:1) by the same name. Since the Space Act of 1958, not only was NASA fully established, but DoD was formally recognized as a prime player with the national security responsibilities in space. The space program was purposely made two-tracked, and DoD began its parallel effort to guide the Services in the future space race and its military uses. It was emphatically important to exploit those new high ground advantages. At a Shuttle landing at Edwards AFB and through a released White House Fact Sheet the President made a directive that: the United States will conduct those activities in space that it deems necessary to its national security. National security space programs shall support such functions as command and control, communications navigation, environmental monitoring, warning, surveillance and space defense. ..that space systems can effectively support a number of military missions and that future use of space should have an operational orientation.(2:21,23) The Army always had a ballistic missile defense (BMD) role, and the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) research and development of that ground-base role will be tied closely with the Air Force's space-based SDI.(2:25) The space related advantages and responsibilities of the Army's role will be examined more closely. The uses of the space arena may not be for some time a weapons-deployment, theater threat, but it certainly will be depended upon even more for surveillance, warning, communications, navigation, meteorology, and geodesy. The world is growing smaller in that the US has ground access to fewer countries for basing now, to do those same national security functions. There will be a heavier reliance on space capabilities as the trend continues. CURRENT SPACE FUNCTIONS: Although most information on surveillance activities is classified, it is well known that satellites and spacecraft have been used for intelligence collection since the early part of the 1960's using many types of orbits. Attack warning is best gained by satellites in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit of greater than 22,000 miles altitude. Warnings of ICBM and SLBM launches can be near real-time as the exhaust plumes are easily detected and identified. Similarly, the Nuclear Detection System (NDS) monitors accurately the burst information of any nuclear explosion (for tests or strike assessments) regarding its location, size, or height of burst. Defense communications and electronic data streams are now heavily dependent on well developed satellite systems Of the defense long-distance communications, more than 80 percent transmit a portion of the linkage via satellite. It is especially true that access to the tactical SATCOM link is highly sought--a technically efficient command and control tool for the long-haul communications. The primary MILSATCOM or military satellite communications system is the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS), and it is being replaced by the Milstar system for its greater survivability, jam-resistance and long-term growth potential. The DSCS uses four active geosynchronous satellites at a time around the world with two over the Pacific, one over the Atlantic and one over the Indian Oceans. The DSCS ground terminals are as large as 60 feet across the parabolic antenna and as small as portable, fold-up, suitcase-size terminals. Tactical units are also aboard moving ships and aircraft. A recent, fast growing system is the navigation NAVSTAR/GPS or Global Positioning System (GPS). The user has a passive (non-transmitting) device to provide his ground location within approximately 10-15 meters via a jam-resistant link to the satellite. All aspects of military operations (from movements to targeting weapons) will be enhanced with this capability. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) provides service with two circular polar, sun-synchronous orbit satellites at approximately 500 miles altitude. One will always be on the sunny side of the earth, since it uses the combined effect of visible light and infrared imagery. Not only are long-range forecasts more accurate but the system can significantly assist in making changes to reconnaissance missions. A limitation of it now is that the data is transmitted down only four times a day. The US Defense Mapping Agency has used the geodetic satellites to do much more than make maps for the ground troops. Not only would detailed contour data on a global basis be incomplete without the space-based system, but the cruise missile navigation data, and the gravitational and magnetic field accuracy for the trajectory of weapons like the ICBMs, would be impossible.(2:27-36) The growing needs of all these space systems has caused an equal growth in organizations to control the systems and service the users of the products. The space arena has gone well past just the R&D stage into the pragmatic, operational exploitation of a wide range of space assets. New organizations grew to meet the challenges. ORGANIZATIONS/AGENCIES: The US Space Command at Colorado Springs formally organized (October, 1985) to fill the increasing need of the Unified and Specified Command CinC's desire for coordination of space-based efforts during peaceful times and during crisis times. The new Command was responsible for the Consolidated Space Operations Center consisting of two major elements: a Shuttle Operations Complex and a Satellite Operations Complex. First, it would consolidate operational space planning and responsibilities of all the Services, allowing increased inter-Service support, less duplication, greater efficiencies. Secondly, it would recognize space as the fourth medium for military action, along with land, sea, and air. . .(2:51) The Air Force always had a large contingent: the Navy followed a long way behind in space manpower. The Army was by far the smallest, but is now quickly growing, and with good reason. Until April 1988 the Army was the only military department that did not have a Service space command to look to its own needs in a coordinated manner. Diverse efforts in the Army came out of smaller offices of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Research and Development, Intelligence, the Army Space Program Office, and the Ballistic Missile Defense program Managers Office. There was a growing recognition that this lack of focus was going to have a significant impact. In 1984 the Army representation in Colorado Springs was an Army Field Element of four personnel, then it grew to a Planning Group in 1985, an Agency in 1986, and the Army Space Command in 1988 with an authorized 444 personnel for October 1990. The Army Space Command (USARSPACE) mission is primarily to enhance the execution of the AirLand Battle for the ground forces.(11:1) USARSPACE has operating centers not only at Falcon AFB, Colorado Springs but also a complex at Kwajalein Atoll for tracking and identification, and a Detachment at the Johnson Space Center for work with NASA. Beginning October 1990 the USARSPACE has responsibility for DoD's DSCS communications with stations world-wide.(10:1-3) The Army space elements are also responsible for the ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons development. The Army has the lead in the system architecture of the kinetic energy ASAT weapon and therefore must work closely with USSPACECOM for the whole Strategic Defense System and the SDI (10:4) The Army realizes that it must smartly use the technological advantages available from space platforms now. The end purpose is to integrate them in the fullest sense into the field Army's AirLand Battle doctrine. The Army Space Command (Peterson AFB) has the responsibility to demonstrate the available space support to the field, the tactical commanders. The Army Space Institute (Ft Leavenworth) has the lead for the combat and materiel development programs. The Army Space Demonstration Program (ASDP) is pushing available service packages out to Army Divisions, Corps, and Theaters. To accelerate the fielding and incorporation of space asset products to the tactical Army units, demonstations and exercise augmentation are provided at every opportunity. Interface with the future user is the goal. ASDP shows the space-based capabilities of weather and terrain (LANDSAT), position and navigation (POS/NAV) with the small light-weight, hand-held GPS receivers, the LIGHTSAT microsatellite with UHF communications to all theaters, and finally the Theater Missile Defense to demonstrate the ability to provide theater missile warning. TRENDS: Surveillance from space has always been a highly guarded capability since the time of the first satellites. As noted by Gen Foss, "the correlation between successful reconnaissance and success in the battle is very high."(3:16) The true, detailed US surveillance capability simply is not open to the public. There has, however, always been much speculation and rumor, some of it well founded on the logic of pieced, known facts. In the past, the President himself (and his advisors) purposely provided some facts publicly to prove critical points to the world community. The US technological capability was evident occasionally (eg., during the Russian shoot-down of the Korean KL-007 airliner) in intercepting communications and reading what the Russian radars were seeing at the time (as revealed by the President). It is logically assumed that the imagery now available is even more advanced than what was then available, and shown by the President during crises times (eg., Cuban missile crisis, aircraft shipments into communist Nicaragua, and the photos of the burned Libyan chemical factory). Simple logical steps are often made that suggest that even better products come from space-based systems now. William Burrows in his article "Space Spies" (1:61-65) suggests that the superior new spy satellites are powerful enough to image objects the size of grapefruit and detect the heat from the afterburners of military jets. Photolike images could be provided even if the Earth is covered-over with thick clouds or if it is in darkness. He believes the December, 1988 launched satellite uses new microwave, radar-type transmitters that have no need for visible light except for energy. Huge thin-sheet solar panels use the direct sunlight to power the satellite's multi-systems for the long-term. Efforts must always press the limits of technique and ingenuity such as (Burrows believes) the KH-11 satellite having the ability to detect from space, movement caused by shadows of objects. The satellite remains in a specific orbit with the sun at a constant angle to the satellite and therefore a changing angle of the sun to the objects on the Earth's surface. Surveillance systems can certainly use the same charge-coupled device (CCD) elements we had in video cameras in the early 1980's. Therefore, it would be feasible to transmit the variable charged sensor signals by a data stream electronically. As noted earlier, the signals could be relayed by way of communications satellites in series around the world for an immediate down link to any intended receiver terminal. That is much faster than photographic film being transported from the satellite (dropped, parachuted, recovered) and then developed for the analysts to scrutinize. All such conjecture by Burrows has logical belief considering the pace of change in technology. (1:62) Beyond logically deduced (unclassified) beliefs of some writers about what the true current intelligence gathering capabilities are, the military must look far beyond the visionary horizons. The past 150 years has shown us that in order to not only survive but to keep in the forefront as a leader nation, we must keep the military force in pace with the rapid technological changes that can effect a nation's might. It is now feasible that the possession of just one clear, but critical military advantage any nation (large or small) may gain over another, could now be decisive in effective control. The Army is usually considered to be in the end, as the final ground gainer or retainer. Therefore, the Army must keep up with or ahead of the accelerating and exhilarating changes. Many of the advantages of recent technological changes relate to space and the space-based systems--the new high ground. This new force multiplier will greatly aid the Army in doing its ultimate business--deter, detour, or defeat an enemy. The current development and acquisition thinking takes even further the imperative to keep up with the technological change-curve. Instead of just trying to follow close behind the new developments (so that another nation does not leap ahead of us with possibly disastrous alternatives), our forces will be modeled on concept-based development. In short, the military (and other institutions as well) conceptualizes what will be needed or desired well off into the future, and lets the technological changers fill the gaps. Space-based systems are part of that future. The Army has been a driving force in the Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP) program to provide new surveillance data from advanced sensors to the theater tactical commander. This is a reliance on the assets of other agencies, and so it is limited. Dedicated space-based sensors are needed now to perform efficiently many functions for a battlefield commander. Newly developed systems will soon tie-in the Army's All Source Analysis Systems (ASAS) with SATCOM, target acquisition, fire control and over-all command and control. It is imperative that we look well into the future. Some writers such as Lt. Col. Newell prod us to look beyond the foreseeable horizon. He envisions the time when space will be the inevitable site for the controling weapons bases. It will also be the travel medium for soldiers. We should not just plan for the next decade or two, but 50 to 100 years. Resources for R & D should be directed to equipping his MI or mobile infantry space-soldiers to fight from space platforms and "hit the dirt" on earth or even other planets. The actual battlefield would be even more dispersed in surface area and space than we have seen it grow in the last 100 years. A greater reliance would be put on the individual soldier; he would control a much wider environment with sensors (or information) and weapons. The requirement for wider and better intelligence is now. The need for this nation's ability to have good surveillance world-wide (not just over the Soviets or their dwindling allies) is becoming even more important, as noted in the DoD Annual Report to Congress, with the growing concern of: Proliferation of Weapons in the Third World. High-technology weapons of all types are available in increasingly alarming quantities in the international marketplace. Proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, as well as modern long-range delivery systems, in the Third World constitutes a grave threat to U.S. interests.(8:2) As the country perceives a reduced threat from the Soviets and there is economic pressure to reduce our fighting forces, there is an inverse (or greater) need for good intelligence and warning. If our country reduces advanced based forces overseas, then more warning time is needed for crisis reaction. In uncertain, rapidly changing times, effective intelligence capabilities will become even more critical to assessing significant events. Dynamic policy. .. is dependent upon a comprehensive, current, and sophisticated intelligence data base. . As a result, a high priority has been placed on strengthening U.S intelligence collection and production capabilities.(8:4) EDUCATION OF ARMY OFFICERS: The Army needs to continue its involvement in the space business. The capabilities of the space-based systems need to become more familiar to the general spread of planners in the Army of all branch specialties. This is important to integrate at every opportunity the advantages of space into all operations and exercises Just as meaningful will be the programmed management of space related career fields. Very important for the short-term maturation of personnel will be formal training, and tracking of individuals by an ASI (additional skill identifier) or by a new branch designator. A basic infusion of space related instruction in the more senior schools--Army Command and Staff College, and the Army War College will give depth to overall awareness more quickly. The Army may need its feet on the ground for now, but some of its sights should be on space BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.Burrows, William E. "Space Spies." Popular Science, (March 1990), 61-65. 2.Downey, Arthur J. The Emerging Role of the US Army in Space. Washingtion, DC: National Defense University Press, 1985. 3."The Future of the Army." Interview with General John W. Foss. Army Times,30(March 5, 1990),12. 4.Gray, Colin S. American Military Space Policy. Cambridge, Mass: Abt Books, 1982. 5.Karas, Thomas. The New High Ground. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. 6.Milton, T. R.,Gen USAF (Ret.). "A New High Ground." Air Force Magazine,(December 1985),102. 7.Newell, Clayton. "The Army and Space." Army, (September 1987), 59-61. 8.Department of Defense. Annual Report to the President and Congress. January 1990. 9.Matthews, William. "Threat" Army Times,26 February 1990,p. 11. 10.USARSPACE Information Paper. Peterson Air Force Base,VA: US Army Space Command,16 October 1989. 11.US Army Space Institute Information Paper. Fort Leavenworth,KS: 16 October 1989. 12."Army Space Command." Army,40-2(June 1988),86.
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
