SB-WASS - Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System

In the early 1990s White Cloud was replaced by more capable satellites related to the Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System (SB-WASS). This system, which extensively studied overtly during the late 1980s, would use either a radar (the Air Force proposal) or an infrared sensor (the Navy idea). Concerns about the high cost of this system, as well as other technical and operational uncertainties, led to postponement of full-scale development of the acknowledged system to 1995, with a first test flight anticipated around 1999.<1>

The Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System (SB-WASS), with potential NATO<2> and Canadian<3> participation, would be used to track ships and aircraft on a global basis, although there is intense disagreement over the type of sensor that would be used. The Navy favored passive infrared sensors that would track the heat emitted by ships and aircraft, while the Air Force favored an active radar system, which it believes would have a superior all-weather capability<4>. These technical preferences mark a reversal from earlier preferences. Navy interest in space-based radar extended from the Albatross studies of the early 1960's through the Clipper Bow effort of the late 1970's.<5> The Air Force and DARPA spent almost $500 million developing the Teal Ruby infrared system before deciding not to fly it.<6>

The choice is more than one of engineering convenience, since the infrared system could require as few as four satellites for continental air defense or 8 to 10 for global coverage,<7> while the radar system could require<;8> anywhere from 8 to 24 massive spacecraft (weighing over 11,000 kilograms<9>), costing from $8 billion<;10> up to $20 billion.<11> The Navy was interested primarily in a system to assist with fleet air defense, while the Air Force requirements also extend to strategic air defense, support of forces forward deployed in areas such as the Persian Gulf, as well as drug interdiction.<12> The Navy is seeking a system that will be responsive to tasking by fleet commanders, while the Air Force prefers a system that will be centrally directed by the U.S. Space Command.<13>

The services also differ on how the space- based system would complement terrestrial systems, with the Air Force claiming that the space-based system could replace ground-based and airbased radars (such as AWACS),<14>; and the Navy seeing the space-based system more as a complement to terrestrial systems.

However, their were serious questions concerning the ability of the SB-WASS to track stealth targets, as well as concerns about the vulnerability of these low-flying satellites to Soviet ASAT attack,<15>; and in 1989 approval of development of this system has been deferred to 1990, with a first test flight anticipated around 1995. In 1991, the overtly acknowledged program was terminated.

Interestingly, there were parallel acknowledged and unacknowledged versions of this program, whose primary difference was that the unacknowledged program was actually conducting the efforts that the acknowledged program characterized merely as future plans. Initially, satellites were launched by both the Air Force, using a rotating radar antenna, and the Navy, using an infrared sensor.

The characteristics of spacecraft launched by the Titan 2 and Titan 4 boosters, beginning in 1989, demonstrate the existence of the parallel un-acknowledged SB- WASS program, which actually flew spacecraft resembling those considered in the acknowledged program. Three launches of the Titan 2 in 1988, 1989 and 1992 placed single spacecraft into orbit, with these spacecraft exhibiting regular flashing reflection patterns, as would be expected from the rotating reflector radar antenna planned for the Air Force SB-WASS.

Sources

<1> "OSD Puts USAF Space Radar Plan on Hold, OSD Studies Non-Space Options," Inside the Air Force, 7 December 1990, page 10-11.

<2> "DOD Considering 27 New NATO Programs for Nunn Funds Over Two Years," Inside the Pentagon, 25 August 1989, page 13-14.

<3> Lowman, Ron, "Canada, U.S. Work to Hone Space-Based Radar Objectives," Defense News, 20 November 1989, page 21.

<4> "Piotrowski Says CINCs Prefer Space-Based Radar to Nay Infrared Surveillance," Electronic Combat Report, 29 September 1989, page 1.

<5> Robinson, Bill, "Space Based Radar," Air Force Industry Briefing, 1 March 1989.

<6> Smith, Bruce, "TEAL RUBY Spacecraft to Be Put in Storage at Norton AFB," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8 January 1990, page 22-23.

<7> Lynch, David, "Space Surveillance Effort in Limbo," Defense Week, 25 september 1989, page 13.

<8> U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, "Summer study on Space Based Radar," September 1987.

<9> Lynch, David, "Space Surveillance Effort in Limbo," Defense Week, 25 september 1989, page 13.

<10> "Piotrowski Says CINCs Prefer Space-Based Radar to Nay Infrared Surveillance," Electronic Combat Report, 29 September 1989, page 1.

<11> Hasley, Donna, "JCS Bid to Define Space Surveillance Mission May Resolve USAF, Navy Fight," Inside the Pentagon, 10 March 1989, page 1, 10.

<12> "Drug Wars Turning to Star Wars," Space News, 9 October 1989, page 2.

<13> "Airborne, Space Radars Top ADI Needs," Military Space, 22 May 1989, page 5-6.

<14> Canan, James, "The Big Hole in NORAD," Air Force Magazine, October 1989, pages 54-59.

<15> "Senate Armed Services Committee Report," Inside the Pentagon, 27 July 1989, page 8.