Will the USAF lose control of Space and Cyberspace?

[DarthAmerica]

Currently, space and cyberspace are the domains of the USAF as far as the DoD is concerned. For years these force multipliers did things like provide intelligence and communications that put the U.S. Military well ahead of it's nearest peers technologically speaking. While important to the DoD CONOPS the USAF has managed these battlespaces as a secondary effort next to the perceived primary task of controlling the air above battlefields and striking enemy centers of gravity from the air.

Today however, we are constantly reminded that these battlespaces can also facilitate significant actions against enemies. In fact, both domains are just as important to the way we wage war as air superiority and strategic bombardment. Tomorrow, it will be the norm to use these domains not only as a supporting the kinetic battlefield, but as primary means of attack. This has began to happen in both cyberspace and space when you consider Estonia, ASAT/missile defense activity and GPS guided weapons.

Can an organization led by fighter pilots truly manage all three domains of air, space and cyberspace? That is a truly mind boggling set of responsibility. Or should the Space Forces and Cyber Forces leave the USAF as it did the U.S. Army when the role of air power clearly required specialization and specific funding separate from land forces?


Opinions/Thoughs/Predictions appreciated
-DA

 

[Feanor]

A space forces branch should definetly be separated from the USAF. Currently they would primarily be a C3 structure, but could eventually evolve to include strategic assets such as space based weapons.

 

[rjmaz1]

It will no doubt be separated in the future.

Having an arm of the military dedicated to space warfare will definitely cause problems as it officially confirms the militarization of space. They should just rename NORAD or give all space control to them instead of just north america.

I have no idea why the USAF performs cyberspace operations. Someone had to do it, i guess they were one of the choices. If the US creates a hacker arm of the military it would no doubt be the most prestigious job for any geek. It will attract more bright minds than the USAF ever could.

 

[Salty Dog]

US Strategic Command

The missions of US Strategic Command are: to deter attacks on US vital interests, to ensure US freedom of action in space and cyberspace, to deliver integrated kinetic and non-kinetic effects to include nuclear and information operations in support of US Joint Force Commander operations, to synchronize global missile defense plans and operations, to synchronize regional combating of weapons of mass destruction plans, to provide integrated surveillance and reconnaissance allocation recommendations to the SECDEF, and to advocate for capabilities as assigned.

It's already in place. The US Strategic Command is a Unified Command.

Link to USSTRATCOM

Service Components

 

[DarthAmerica]

It's already in place. The US Strategic Command is a Unified Command.

Link to USSTRATCOM

Service Components

Yes but ultimately who controls the money? Thats the problem IMHO. I'm starting to think a completely independent service component might be a better solution.

-DA

 

[Fritz]

I dont see any real difference of air and space, sbar and the proposed orbiting AWACs is just a continuing of surveilling the battlespace, but with other means.
Cyberspace is another topic alltogether.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding DoD space interests, I think that can be safely left to the USAF, as that can be thought of in "flight" terms, should space ever be militarized.

As for Cyberspace interests... I am less certain that should even be a DoD function. IMV the sort of creativity or mindset that would lend itself best to hacking or counterhacking, does not fit particularly well into a manning chart. Similarly, having a uniform approach to cyberwarfare could easily lead to glaring weaknesses in "doctrine" which could be exploited.

In terms of cyberdefence/warfare, I think what is called for would be a group that is decentralized, highly creative and adaptive. If it were to be a government function, I would consider a cyberwarefare unit to be more the province of intel/law enforcement agencies.

-Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Regarding DoD space interests, I think that can be safely left to the USAF, as that can be thought of in "flight" terms, should space ever be militarized.

As for Cyberspace interests... I am less certain that should even be a DoD function. IMV the sort of creativity or mindset that would lend itself best to hacking or counterhacking, does not fit particularly well into a manning chart. Similarly, having a uniform approach to cyberwarfare could easily lead to glaring weaknesses in "doctrine" which could be exploited.

In terms of cyberdefence/warfare, I think what is called for would be a group that is decentralized, highly creative and adaptive. If it were to be a government function, I would consider a cyberwarefare unit to be more the province of intel/law enforcement agencies.

-Cheers

Interesting views. The only difference I have is comparing space to air breathing operations. Yes, they are both high off the ground but the differences are drastic. Literally alien. Its an entirely different way of thinking. It would be like saying Submarines are really aircraft since they have to deal with fluid mechanics. Thats the kind of differences.

With regard to cyberspace. The DoD does operate intel services as well. But I do think care has to be taken to ensure the cyberforce doesn't get too rigid the way the services are today. Cyber Troops need to keep up with the culture typical of the cyber community. But they do need direction so that efforts are directed towards U.S. National Security interest and funding so they can prioritize their own efforts based on what they think they need.

-DA

 

[Fritz]

In terms of cyberdefence/warfare, I think what is called for would be a group that is decentralized, highly creative and adaptive. If it were to be a government function, I would consider a cyberwarefare unit to be more the province of intel/law enforcement agencies.

My thoughts too. FBI/CIA is allready working with cyberdefence/warfare, and every now and then can track down geeks/criminals.
These villains can with battle-proved waterboardering techniqes be converted into highly innovative hack mercenaries.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Why would the USAF lose control of space and cyberspace? It has the best computers, satellites and missiles in the world for that job. I do know the Pentagon is attacked 3 million times a day and thats why the USAF does cyber-warfare.

 

[Todjaeger]

Why would the USAF lose control of space and cyberspace? It has the best computers, satellites and missiles in the world for that job. I do know the Pentagon is attacked 3 million times a day and thats why the USAF does cyber-warfare.

Technology alone does not guarantee supremacy. The "best" computers, when coupled with a restrictive and/or unimaginative doctrine or attitude can be defeated by more creative opponents utilitizing inferior systems.

An example of the atmosphere I am thinking of would be the US use of the DES, and the apparent government resistance to updating or replacing it. Granted, it has been replaced (circa 2002) with a more secure encryption method. Granted, some of my information is likely dated since I have gotten out of that tech area but the fact that it took nearly 30 (yes, 3-0) years to do so, and that private, non-governmental sponsored security methods have surpassed government sanctioned methods in private sector use speaks volumes to me.

-Cheers