United States Space Force: sooner rather than later

The Space Review ^ | 02/27/06 | Taylor Dinerman

[KevinDavis]

It’s time to admit that the 2001 decision—in keeping with the recommendations of the second Rumsfeld commission—that made the Air Force the “Executive Agent for Space” has just not worked: not due to any malfeasance or corruption or lack of good will, but simply because the USAF has other priorities.

The Air Force is all about airpower. Before World War Two, when it was still the Army Air Corps, its leaders believed that America needed airpower. In the grand scheme of things, they were completely vindicated, and no one more so than Hap Arnold, the Chief of Staff for air from 1939 to 1945. Arnold’s vision of a military organization dedicated to constantly developing its fighting edge through the use of science and technology is still one of the USAF’s core strengths.

The primary manifestation of airpower is air superiority or air supremacy—being able to put your airplanes in the sky over the enemy and preventing him from putting his airplanes over your own forces or even over his own. The ultimate expression of air supremacy is being able to prevent an opponent from flying anywhere above his own homeland. Today, the preferred instrument of this concept is the F-22, by far the best fighting aircraft ever built. The question the Pentagon and Congress are trying to answer is whether future air superiority campaigns be hard—that is, conducted with a force of 180 F-22s—or easy, conducted with more than 350?

[KevinDavis]

I agree..

[KevinDavis]

[Billthedrill]

We already have one. Who do you think is flying the UFO's from Dreamland?

(BtD tiptoes away while music from The Outer Limits plays in background...)

[phantomworker]

Today, the preferred instrument of this concept is the F-22, by far the best fighting aircraft ever built.

I'll buy that.

[martin_fierro]

Sign me up!

(already got me the kewl patches 'n' everything!)

[Trueblackman]

Better get my papers in for Starfleet LOL.

[Constantine XIII]

That would be awesome.

I'd join yesterday. :)

[KevinDavis]

I'll fake my age to join a United States Space Force...

[SteveMcKing]

I recall recently that some head at the Pentagon did (as paid in his job capacity) already redefine the USAF as "a space and air force" instead of "an air and space force".

I'm sure he earned a medal for that piece of hard work and superior vision - and an honorary bronze plaque that now resides in a conference room at some godforsaken air base in Alaska, lovingly displayed right next to a neglected coffee urn...

[Nachum]

Battleship Troopers.

[phantomworker]

Nice patches!

[Billthedrill]

I'll fake my age to join a United States Space Force...

Sorry, bub. Maximum age is 148. 153 with a waiver and your Mom's permission...

[Thunder90]

More Star-Trek like symbols...

[Thunder90]

A new force should not be created until we get to the moon again.

[Thunder90]

See post 13!

[phantomworker]

You think the F-22's are Star-Trek symbols?

[Thunder90]

The triangles on the USSS logo reminded me of Star Trek.

[Lucky Dog]

Sorry, the author of this article is not correct.

The entire thrust of his position comes down to the following three statements:

The primary manifestation of airpower is air superiority or air supremacy…

The most important reason the US Department of Defense needs a Space Force is that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth.

A new space service…[will] …make sure that the capabilities and limitations of US and enemy space forces are taken into account.

The author is apparently unaware that the primary reason the USAF came into existence was unity of command in strategic application of air power, not air superiority, per se. That is to say, the USAF came into existence as a single command agent for planning and executing the application of decisive military force (especially nuclear weapons) to strategic, enemy centers of power and preventing an enemy from doing the same to the US.

While sustained and pervasive air superiority is certainly conducive to this strategic goal it is not absolutely essential. Air superiority need only be achieved at the limited time and place of strategic force application or restricting the enemy from the same.

The US Army’s tendency to parcel out assets to field commanders is laudable in terms to “combined arms” application on the tactical battlefield. It enables a major commander to coordinate his forces to maximize tactical firepower impact and minimize fratricide. However, this same division in command of assets hampers strategic applications of assets that can be massed in time and space far removed from the battlefield. Consequently, especially from the perspective of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the need for a separate service that established unity of command for the application of strategic assets became obvious after WWII.

Regardless of the fact that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth, the important issue is not these differences. Rather, the important consideration is whether or not these differences significantly limit or amplify the application of decisive military force from this arena. Given the current state of space capabilities and limitations from a military perspective, there is no reason to view the application of decisive military force to strategic targets from this arena any differently from the application of strategic air power. Stated another way, the author’s rationale falls far short of that which would be required to create a separate “space force.”

[jmcenanly]

I think the idea was to echo the old Star Trek insignia.

This would give the general public a way of thinking of the new corps.

I also think that Roddenberry may have gotten the general design for his emblem from yet another branch of the government

[aught-6]

I'm there...zero grav would be cool.