Pre-Space Age Approaches to Military Capabilities

March 2018 No Comments

[Q15] What insight on current space operations can we gain from understanding the approaches used for surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings before the advent of the space age?

Author(s): George Popp (NSI, Inc.)

Summary Response

This report summarizes the input of 13 insightful responses contributed by space experts from National Security Space, industry, academia, government, think tanks, and space law and policy communities. While this summary response presents an overview of key subject matter expert contributor insights, the summary alone cannot fully convey the fine detail of the contributor inputs provided, each of which is worth reading in its entirety.

Approaches to Military Capabilities Before the Advent of the Space Age

Since long before the space age, capabilities such as surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings have been critical core- competencies of powerful nations. With the emergence of the space age, these capabilities expanded exponentially, both in power and precision, as well as importance to national security and defense objectives. While pre-space age approaches serve as the foundation for current approaches to these capabilities, space-based manifestations have brought clear advancements and new vulnerabilities with them. In response to these new challenges, both scholars and practitioners have started to look back to pre-space age approaches to uncover insights and lessons learned from older methods that might be used to mitigate some of the vulnerabilities in present-day systems.

Navigation, Positioning, and Timing

Before the advent of the space age, approaches to navigation, positioning, and timing capabilities consisted largely of “looking to the stars” (Sampigethaya; Samson). This, Dr. Krishna Sampigethaya of United Technologies Research Center explains, entailed “performing geometry-based calculations based on celestial bodies and their alignment with respect to the visible horizon on Earth to compute a current position, in terms of latitude and longitude, on Earth.” Today, navigation, positioning, and timing capabilities are founded in a GPS-based approach. This modern GPS-based approach has distinct advantages over pre-space age celestial navigation, according to Sampigethaya: “it provides altitude and timing data; is more scalable, accurate, and granular; and no human intervention is needed for position computing.” On the other hand, GPS-based navigation, positioning, and timing is prone to security vulnerabilities that pre-space age celestial navigation-based approaches were not. Such security challenges include the ability for potential attackers to directly target GPS satellites; to observe, disrupt, and jam GPS signals and data; and to exploit ground-based GPS systems. Despite these present-day challenges, the assertion from Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation, that “obviously the use of stars for navigation is not as predictable as our current navigation capabilities stemming from space,” illustrates how far the approaches to navigation, positioning, and timing capabilities have advanced.

Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Indications and Warnings

Like the approaches to navigation, positioning, and timing capabilities, approaches to surveillance, reconnaissance, and indications and warnings capabilities have advanced with the emergence of the space age. Modern satellite-based approaches to surveillance, reconnaissance, and indications and warnings have emerged as superior to the pre-space age approaches, which largely relied on air- and ground-based sensors.6 Satellites, Sampigethaya explains, make surface-to-air systems more robust, allowing for unmanned operation, greater accuracy and stealth, and instantaneous communication between air and ground systems. Moreover, Samson suggests, satellite-based systems have marginalized some of the capability limitations stemming from overflight and airspace sovereignty constraints that hamper air- and ground-based approaches. The emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) offers an example of what Sampigethaya describes as a “hybrid” approach, combining elements of the pre-space age air-based approach with modern satellites to produce enhanced surveillance, reconnaissance, and indications and warnings: UAVs are “controlled by human pilots, more cost- effective, adaptive, and accurate, but rel[y] on satellites for navigation, timing, and communications.” The contributors did not specifically mention any vulnerabilities that emerge from the modern satellite- based approach to surveillance, reconnaissance, and indications and warnings capabilities, but there is no reason to believe that satellites are immune to the same security challenges (e.g., adversarial targeting, observation, disruption, jamming, and exploitation) that can limit the space-based approaches to navigation, positioning, and timing capabilities.

Insight on Current Space Operations

The emergence of the space age has propelled advancements in surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings capabilities, both in implementation and output. Pre-space age approaches to these capabilities have not been entirely forgotten, however, and in some cases these foundational approaches are still applied, albeit typically to a lesser extent than in the past. Together, the contributors’ reflections on the approaches used for surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings capabilities before and after the advent of the space age suggest four general insights.

Controlling the “high ground” is still important.
Space domain advancements can and should be capitalized on to maximize military effectiveness.
There are risks and vulnerabilities associated with being too dependent on space-based approaches and capabilities.
More efficient and effective space systems and processes are needed.

Controlling the High Ground

The military significance of controlling the high ground has persisted across the spectrum of time, both before and after the advent of the space age. With the emergence of the space age, however, its location has changed: Outer space has become the new high ground.

Surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings capabilities are all influenced by the high ground. While simply possessing or using these capabilities does not require control of the high ground, if the goal is to achieve capability dominance and superiority, controlling the high ground can be fundamental. Contributors from Harris Corporation reflect that before the emergence of the space age, superiority in capabilities such as surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings was largely dependent on “controlling the high ground, initially terrestrially and later in the air,” and ensuring “line of sight.” They emphasize the wide-ranging importance of controlling space as the new high ground:

As the new ‘high ground,’ and medium through which an increasing percentage of our communications flows, controlling space will be critical…Controlling the high ground is critical to surveillance, reconnaissance, and indications and warnings, making space situational awareness and space superiority absolutely critical to these functions. Space also offers another path in support of redundant, robust, and protected lines of communications in support of command and control, navigation, and timing.

Thus, the Harris Corporation contributors conclude that, “whoever can achieve the highest [ground] will always have the best space situational awareness. Whoever has the best space situational awareness has a military advantage in very simplistic terms over the adversary.”

Maximizing Military Effectiveness

The importance of capitalizing on space domain operations, and the enhanced military capabilities space systems offer, in order to maximize overall military effectiveness is an insight that several contributors echo.7 In considering the lessons that can be gleaned from pre-space age approaches to military capabilities, Dr. Malcolm Davis of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute reflects on the approaches to military conflict of the past. He describes a time in which warfare was “a blunt and imprecise affair” that focused on “brute force application” and “the use of attrition in battle.” This is a stark contrast to the “modern information-age” approach to warfare that has emerged since the advent of the space age. Davis’ reflection on the pre-space age approach to military conflict reveals a key insight on current space operations.

The clearest and most important aspects we [can] take from pre-space age operations is an understanding that space opens up a much greater ability to understand the battlespace, control forces, and apply precision effect against an opponent in both time and space in a manner that maximizes military effectiveness.

Major General (USAF ret.) James Armor of Orbital ATK also highlights the importance of capitalizing on space-based capabilities for overall military effectiveness, stressing the importance of increasing resilience and enhancing alternate capabilities. The best approach for achieving success in this sense, he suggests, is to “normalize the use of space in military operations.” Contributors from Harris Corporation express similar thinking, and point to approaches to military capabilities in the air domain as a particularly relevant model. They argue that, “the space domain is no different than the air domain when it comes to the key mission areas. We talk about space superiority, offensive space control, defensive space control. We need to talk about offensive and defensive counter-space, suppression of enemy space defenses, and space intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.”

Avoiding Over-Dependence on Space

While the emergence of space-enabled capabilities has driven significant advancement in military capabilities, several contributors8 caution against relying entirely on space-based approaches for military capabilities. Colonel Dr. Timothy Cullen of Air University most adamantly raises this caution, arguing that military operations and capabilities “should not be wholly dependent upon information or activity from a global commons” such as space.9 His caution stems from concerns relating to ensuring the security and credibility of military capabilities and operations. Military capabilities, he believes, are “most credible and secure when founded in sovereign territory, airspace, or waters, or when the capabilities are encompassed completely within the design of the weapons system itself.”

To illustrate this point, as well as the feasibility of non-space approaches, Cullen points to US inter- continental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities, which he describes as the “most credible deterrent to date against threats of sovereignty by near-peer adversaries because their navigation systems are completely self-contained” (i.e., US ICBM capabilities are not dependent upon information originating from outside of the US or allied territory). ICBMs, he explains, were initially designed to hit far-ranging targets without the support of space-based timing or navigation capabilities. Moreover, the non-space- based technologies and capabilities that support ICBMs have only improved and become more affordable in the time since the initial development of the ICBM.

Ultimately, Cullen is clear in his assertion that more secure and credible non-space approach alternatives exist and should be considered. Further solidifying his argument that approaches to military operations and capabilities should not, and do not have to, be entirely dependent on space, he posits that “terrestrial and airborne approaches may remain more financially efficient and as adaptable and responsive as less capable legacy weapon systems for generations to come.”

Developing Efficient and Effective Systems and Processes

Several contributors10 suggest that surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings capabilities would benefit from more efficient and effective systems and processes. Contributors identify three areas that need improvement: integrating space operations and programs, overcoming innovation-stifling bureaucratic processes, and enhancing of space capability systems.

Integrating Space Operations and Programs

Dr. John Karpiscak III of the United States Army Geospatial Center and contributors from Harris Corporation highlight the need for improved integration of space operations and programs. Harris Corporation contributors describe US space programs as being too stove-piped and devoid of synergy. Notably, this is not the case in other domains, they explain, as the US has “been able to unlock the synergies across all the services and mission areas with a joint force” on the land, on the sea, and in the air. In the space domain, however, US space programs and operations are overly compartmentalized. This lack of synergy has clear consequences, they stress, because “to be truly effective in any domain requires all of our capabilities within that domain to understand each other’s mission areas and leverage them in support of their own mission areas. Until we can do that, we take on more risk and we will not be as effective as we could be going forward.” Karpiscak III similarly highlights the need for improved integration of US space programs and operations, arguing that “what we really need is a change in mindset on being able to integrate all of these things. It’s not just one thing—we need to be able to integrate all of them.”

Overcoming Bureaucracy

Marc Berkowitz of Lockheed Martin and Karpiscak III highlight the need for more efficient and effective approaches to bureaucracy. Karpiscak III identifies government bureaucracy, and the glacial pace of progress that deep-rooted bureaucracy causes, as a clear problem. Bureaucracy, he explains, “creates an incremental, slow to change culture due either to an inability, or perhaps even unwillingness, of the decision makers to understand how to properly exploit the technology, and the cost and imposed acquisition limitations by federal acquisition regulations, US policy, etc.”

Berkowitz comments on the bureaucratic sources of the shortcomings of US space indications and warnings systems. He points to a lack of direction and coordination between USG and DoD agencies as the crux of the problem: “There is no clear delineation of authorities and responsibilities among US intelligence agencies to provide operations intelligence support for space indications and warnings. Nor are there adequate human and technical resources allocated for such support.” To begin overcoming these institutional deficiencies, he suggests that “the US national security establishment could gain some understanding by going back to pre-space age basics for the creation of an effective space indications and warnings system.”

Improving Space Capability Systems

Contributors from ViaSat, Inc. reflect on potential improvements to capability systems and approaches, focusing on satellite communication systems in particular. They posit a more robust approach, one in which “a multi-layered satellite architecture is available to deliver capability to users, agnostic of satellite, when needed.” Highlighting the upside of this approach, they explain that “purpose-built satellites are valuable for specific missions but the failure to take advantage of other systems can create gaps and seams. The [US] government can [instead] adopt an approach with satellite communication…in which the best available system is employed to meet mission requirements.”

Conclusion

With the emergence of the space age, capabilities such as surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings have expanded exponentially, both in power and precision, as well as importance to national security and defense objectives. Pre- space age approaches provide the foundation for current approaches to these capabilities. Space-based manifestations have brought both clear advancements and new vulnerabilities with them.

The expert contributors to this report reflect on the approaches used for surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, timing synchronization, and indications and warnings capabilities before and after the advent of the space age. This reflection ultimately uncovers four general insights on current space operations.

Controlling the “high ground” is still important.
Space domain advancements can and should be capitalized on to maximize military effectiveness.
There are risks and vulnerabilities associated with being too dependent on space-based approaches and capabilities.
More efficient and effective space systems and processes are needed.

Contributors

Major General (USAF ret.) James Armor2 (Orbital ATK); Marc Berkowitz (Lockheed Martin); Dr. Damon Coletta and Lieutenant General (USAF ret.) Deron Jackson (United States Air Force Academy); Colonel Dr. Timothy Cullen3 (Air University); Dr. Malcolm Davis (Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australia); Faulconer Consulting Group; Jonathan D. Fox (Defense Threat Reduction Agency Global Futures Office); Harris Corporation; Theresa Hitchens (Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland); Dr. John Karpiscak III (United States Army Geospatial Center); Dr. Krishna Sampigethaya4 (United Technologies Research Center); Victoria Samson (Secure World Foundation); ViaSat, Inc.

This publication was released as part of SMA’s Contested Space Operations: Space Defense, Deterrence, and Warfighting project. For more information regarding this project, please click here.