• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The US Space Force

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Sorry, I was inspired to post a non sequitur. The Space Force will require an infrastructure not yet in existence and operational mission parameters which, right now, appear vague at best. My swipe at the US President was over his management style. He talks a lot, and signs documents but as far as I can tell, doesn't pay close attention. He is a terrible leader overall.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,963
Reaction score
468
Sorry, I was inspired to post a non sequitur. The Space Force will require an infrastructure not yet in existence and operational mission parameters which, right now, appear vague at best. My swipe at the US President was over his management style. He talks a lot, and signs documents but as far as I can tell, doesn't pay close attention. He is a terrible leader overall.

When the Air Force was carved off the Army I assume all the doctrinal issues discussed in the articles were addressed and set? The entire reason to segregate space from the Air Force was to force these issues to be addressed in the first place (by people institutionally loyal to an existing organization).

You've already made clear you oppose the existence of an independent US Space Force so of course Trump is a terrible leader. I again get an odd sensation when I read "at the US President". That's an unusual expression if it were coming from an American (even one who hates Trump) and adds to the oddity of the "bimodal" English you use.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Sorry, I was inspired to post a non sequitur. The Space Force will require an infrastructure not yet in existence and operational mission parameters which, right now, appear vague at best. My swipe at the US President was over his management style. He talks a lot, and signs documents but as far as I can tell, doesn't pay close attention. He is a terrible leader overall.

When the Air Force was carved off the Army I assume all the doctrinal issues discussed in the articles were addressed and set? The entire reason to segregate space from the Air Force was to force these issues to be addressed in the first place (by people institutionally loyal to an existing organization).

You've already made clear you oppose the existence of an independent US Space Force so of course Trump is a terrible leader. I again get an odd sensation when I read "at the US President". That's an unusual expression if it were coming from an American (even one who hates Trump) and adds to the oddity of the "bimodal" English you use.

I do use bimodal English. I have heavily researched the early post-war period and the issues driving the intelligence and military services. In a declassified report published in May 1946, it was stated that pilotless systems were needed in months. Nothing but survival needed to be addressed. Institutional loyalty meant very little after Winston Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech in March of that year. New programs were started for this or that weapon system or old, wartime programs were brought forward.

Everything had to be protected under high classification, including the use of captured German equipment and personnel. The former OSS, now the CIA, had overall management control since they had that knowledge and access to those personnel. Forward planning was dictated to the US government, not planned by it. Closed-door sessions were held to tell the US government what was going to happen. What needed to happen to ensure national survival and national security. You could say force was used but the national interest had to be controlled and managed and the US government was more of a bystander than anything else. When reconnaissance of the Soviet Union began, whatever aircraft were available were used. Interservice rivalry didn't matter.

I have made no remarks opposing what appears to be a useless concept. And I would ask that you do not assign emotion words to me. I do not hate the US President. I will point out that he is an uncivilized man. That is just obvious.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,963
Reaction score
468
I do use bimodal English. I have heavily researched the early post-war period and the issues driving the intelligence and military services. In a declassified report published in May 1946, it was stated that pilotless systems were needed in months. Nothing but survival needed to be addressed. Institutional loyalty meant very little after Winston Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech in March of that year. New programs were started for this or that weapon system or old, wartime programs were brought forward.

Everything had to be protected under high classification, including the use of captured German equipment and personnel. The former OSS, now the CIA, had overall management control since they had that knowledge and access to those personnel. Forward planning was dictated to the US government, not planned by it. Closed-door sessions were held to tell the US government what was going to happen. What needed to happen to ensure national survival and national security. You could say force was used but the national interest had to be controlled and managed and the US government was more of a bystander than anything else. When reconnaissance of the Soviet Union began, whatever aircraft were available were used. Interservice rivalry didn't matter.

I have made no remarks opposing what appears to be a useless concept. And I would ask that you do not assign emotion words to me. I do not hate the US President. I will point out that he is an uncivilized man. That is just obvious.

So the CIA was dictating national policy to the US government which was reduced to bystander status. And in 1946 in a period seeing a gigantic disarmament process where millions of Americans were discharged, planes were scrapped, ships mothballed, and contracts cancelled.

That right there is a great example of bimodal history if at the same time the CIA was using force to dictate a crash program to develop weapons to counter the Soviet Union.

I employed "hate" in terms of a hypothetical American because I wasn't sure you are one. You can claim to employ derogatory terms ("uncivilized") without emotion but you can't be unaware such words naturally carry emotional weight.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
218
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
That right there is a great example of bimodal history if at the same time the CIA was using force to dictate a crash program to develop weapons to counter the Soviet Union.
Actually, the early years of CIA was a string of almost complete failures. Since the majority of CIA initial personnel were from special operations command during the war, they tried what they knew to do best: train & infiltrate saboteurs and armed agents, recruited from emigrants. Information gathering and analytical work was almost nonexistent - Dulles despised those "theoretical aspects". He was convinced that the war with USSR would starts soon, so he concentrated al CIA efforts and money on training & sending a large army of agents to support the anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe.

The results were... disastrous. Since CIA have absolutely no idea about the operating procedures of KGB, the majority of those agents were quickly captured, and from them KGB obtained a lot of precious information about the operating procedures of CIA. So the subsequent agents were captured even faster. A KGB joke of this time was that Dulles could save a lot of money if he start to send agents directly into prison camps.

Only when the Korean War started, and absolute failures of CIA to predict it became apparent, the situation finally changed, and CIA started to actually do intelligence and analytical work.

So... quite a lot of quite powerful organizations started from the dismal failures)
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
That picture of the OSS and later CIA missions is incomplete. Yes, agents were sent into a high risk environment. It had to be done. Aerial reconnaissance started in 1945. See: Spyflights and Overflights: US Strategic Aerial Reconnaissance 1945-1960 by Robert Hopkins III. Churchill made his speech in 1946 to warn allies and to put the Russians on notice. The Russians had V-1s and V-2s and the world's first combat jet aircraft, including bombers. See: The V1 and its Soviet Successors by Wilfried Kopenhagen.

England was broke. In the London area, about 23,000 houses were destroyed and 1,104,000 were damaged. America was left to continue to support its wartime ally, especially in terms of defense. If the Russians moved west, a plan was in place to activate part of the German army and the Waffen SS. Yes, demobilization occurred but how many occupation troops had any experience fighting the Russians?

To prepare for all possibilities and to get an advantage, projects were started in the US. The USAAF started Project NEPA in May 1946. Meanwhile, due to secrecy and access to highly classified knowledge, the CIA had to manage all sensitive security programs. The book From Rainbow to Gusto: Stealth and the Design of the Lockheed Blackbird gives a very good overview of CIA supervision. Canada and Australia were large and valuable test and production areas, along with providing surveillance and detection of Russian bombers.

In the report, Guided Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft by H. L. Dryden, W.H. Pickering, H.S. Tsien and G.B. Schubauer, it states on page one: "Our military leaders are fully aware now of the necessity of pushing developments of guided missiles, and almost frantic efforts are being made to compress within a few months developments which ordinarily take years." The report has a publication date of May, 1946.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
846
Reaction score
304
Sorry, I was inspired to post a non sequitur. The Space Force will require an infrastructure not yet in existence and operational mission parameters which, right now, appear vague at best. My swipe at the US President was over his management style. He talks a lot, and signs documents but as far as I can tell, doesn't pay close attention. He is a terrible leader overall.
When the Air Force was carved off the Army I assume all the doctrinal issues discussed in the articles were addressed and set? The entire reason to segregate space from the Air Force was to force these issues to be addressed in the first place (by people institutionally loyal to an existing organization).

You've already made clear you oppose the existence of an independent US Space Force so of course Trump is a terrible leader. I again get an odd sensation when I read "at the US President". That's an unusual expression if it were coming from an American (even one who hates Trump) and adds to the oddity of the "bimodal" English you use.
To be clear the "Space Force" is being treated as the USAF equivilent of the how the Marine Corps is treated by the Navy. NOT really a 'seperate' organization as of yet, (and apparently in the mind of many higher ups it never will actually be more than that) but due to the directive publicly treated as one.

Exactly NOT like how the Army Air Corps became the US Air Force I might add. Yes in fact when the AF seperated from the Army most all the 'details' had been already hashed out and settled due to almost two decades of the organizations growing apart and defining operations and procedures. The 'reason' for the 'segregation' is actually based on trying to 'purge' the current Space Command of other services other than the Air Force and the AF has never made any bones about that outcome and are not happy about how it's being touted as its own service. (There was a reason the AF was against the idea of a 'seperate' force in the first place as such operations are not easy or cheap to accomplish)

Randy
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,963
Reaction score
468
To be clear the "Space Force" is being treated as the USAF equivilent of the how the Marine Corps is treated by the Navy. NOT really a 'seperate' organization as of yet, (and apparently in the mind of many higher ups it never will actually be more than that) but due to the directive publicly treated as one.

Exactly NOT like how the Army Air Corps became the US Air Force I might add. Yes in fact when the AF seperated from the Army most all the 'details' had been already hashed out and settled due to almost two decades of the organizations growing apart and defining operations and procedures. The 'reason' for the 'segregation' is actually based on trying to 'purge' the current Space Command of other services other than the Air Force and the AF has never made any bones about that outcome and are not happy about how it's being touted as its own service. (There was a reason the AF was against the idea of a 'seperate' force in the first place as such operations are not easy or cheap to accomplish)

Randy

The Air Force has historically resisted attempts to raise space operations to a level of prominence equivalent to its existing major commands. Doing so means budget competition for its historic functions. The creation of the US Space Force at a level equivalent to the Marines was forced by Congress and not due to Air Force turf wars against the other services. Left to its own, the Air Force would still treat space as a secondary mission and without the direct Congressional access to advocate for major programs.

WWII allowed the Air Force to expand and prove out its strategic and tactical policies. Air Force budget primacy following WWII grew out of its monopoly over strategic nuclear weapons delivery at the expense of the Army. Without a WWIII, the Air Force was never going to allocate serious resources to space. With the Space Force established even as a subordinate service, it now can create doctrines and policies which institutionally will prioritize reducing cost and difficulty of space access.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Well, "not publicly available" and "classified" would limit any discussion. Why would any country tamper with another's satellites? Do the various enemies or potential enemies of the US know what the consequences would be?

Counterspace? Really? Who comes up with this stuff?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
Just came across this:
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,011
Reaction score
1,067
Well, "not publicly available" and "classified" would limit any discussion. Why would any country tamper with another's satellites? Do the various enemies or potential enemies of the US know what the consequences would be?

Counterspace? Really? Who comes up with this stuff?
Because other powers interfering with US satellites is unpossible?
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Well, "not publicly available" and "classified" would limit any discussion. Why would any country tamper with another's satellites? Do the various enemies or potential enemies of the US know what the consequences would be?

Counterspace? Really? Who comes up with this stuff?
Because other powers interfering with US satellites is unpossible?

Of course it's possible. The question is: Do they, whoever they may be, know what would happen?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
655
Of course it's possible. The question is: Do they, whoever they may be, know what would happen?
Probably not. Then again, neither does the US; these are untested waters. But it sure seems that resorting to a lethal (or even non-lethal) kinetic response to the destruction of an unmanned asset may not be acceptable or desirable. Last year, the Iranians shot down an RQ-4, a pretty expensive US national asset, and the US decided to let it go without a response. Sure, the military wanted some sort of reaction, but Trump overrode them on that. THat may be a precedent it's not easy to overturn even with someone else in the hot seat in the future.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
It's one thing to identify a threat, or multiple threats, but some advanced response scenario planning likely exists. Since escalation of capabilities is 'inevitable,' response planning should be in place long before any other future incidents. Of course, the average person has no need to know. The Pentagon never calls me for advice :)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,011
Reaction score
1,067
Of course it's possible. The question is: Do they, whoever they may be, know what would happen?
Probably not. Then again, neither does the US; these are untested waters. But it sure seems that resorting to a lethal (or even non-lethal) kinetic response to the destruction of an unmanned asset may not be acceptable or desirable. Last year, the Iranians shot down an RQ-4, a pretty expensive US national asset, and the US decided to let it go without a response. Sure, the military wanted some sort of reaction, but Trump overrode them on that. THat may be a precedent it's not easy to overturn even with someone else in the hot seat in the future.
Probably depends what it is and how it's done. Dazzling a billion dollar satellite with a laser is one thing. Destroying it with an ASAT or high powered laser quite another.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
The government loves acronyms and lengthy names. Were that they called this the Satellite Protection and Defense Corps as opposed to the very 1950s, Space Force.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
846
Reaction score
304
The government loves acronyms and lengthy names. Were that they called this the Satellite Protection and Defense Corps as opposed to the very 1950s, Space Force.
Please, it would be Space Protection and Defense Service... Who wouldn't love to be a "SPaDS"? :)

Randy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Yes, the government loves acronyms, but SPADS? Too much like SPUDS. :)
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425



 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
674
Reaction score
154
Just found this on our sister forum whatifmodellers.com (and please remember, shooting the messenger is generally considered bad form ;)):

1587947937000.png
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
Brain bleach and flamethrowers, stat! We can talk about making you a test target for thermoplasmic weapons later...
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
655
And apparently we are developing a "super duper missile" that goes "17 times faster than what we have right now."

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,011
Reaction score
1,067

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
218
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
And apparently we are developing a "super duper missile" that goes "17 times faster than what we have right now."
Hm, most likely coincidence, of course, but considering that the new super-duper missile was mentioned in context with Space Force - maybe US decided to solve the problem with hypersonic gliders by re-entering them from orbit?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,157
Reaction score
757
Just a reminder; The theme here is the US Space Force, not the current, or prior US president, or soemthing like that.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hm, most likely coincidence, of course, but considering that the new super-duper missile was mentioned in context with Space Force - maybe US decided to solve the problem with hypersonic gliders by re-entering them from orbit?
It would be interesting if the missile is a "Thor/Rod From God," but it's unlikely.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
36
They just need a way to tow asteroids from the Asteroid Belt and park them behind the Moon. If a country acts up, just send them an honest shot from space, no one would know.
 
Top