Posted on Aug 20, 2020
Why is the Space Force a whole different military branch instead of a command under the Air Force? Is there any advantage?
5.79K
41
17
2
2
0
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 8
As a former officer who spent half his career around fighter jets and half around space systems, I will tell you from an insider point of view.
Point 1: Personnel and expertise. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) was a major command with about 35,000 personnel, but not all of those personnel were entirely space-focused. Also there were other space cadre spread throughout the Air Force serving at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Some of the space cadre were being moved in and out of the space community every 3-4 years. By creating a separate branch of the military, the US Space Force (USSF) can now manage its cadre of space personnel in a more focused manner.
Point 2: Funding. The AFSPC budget was about $10B per year (using round numbers) out of the entire, joint space budget of $12B. There is $38B of funding that was used as a "pass-through" to the intelligence community for classified programs. The US Air Force (USAF) budget is about $200B per year, minus the $10B for AFSPC and the $38B pass-through, leaving the USAF to "execute" a $200B with "only" $152B. The separation of of the USSF from the USAF means that the USAF owns almost all of the budget that it must execute and report to Congress, and now the USSF gets its own budget that it does not need to compete against fighter jets, bombers, and some portion of the classified pass-through. Ideally, the USSF would have about 50% control over that intelligence community pass-through. By creating a separate branch of the military, both the USAF and the USSF can better manage the funding they receive.
Point 3: Unity of command and new applications of space power. Before the creation of USSF, a good amount of the space forces in all branches was shared with air, ground, sea, marine, and cyber forces. Around the same time that the USSF was created, the Department of Defense stood up an eleventh unified command, US Space Command (USSPACECOM). Under this construct, USSF has unity of command in terms of the organize, train, and equip function for the joint space forces, and the majority of those functions ($10B out of $12B budget (83%), and the plurality of the now 40k personnel (20k or 50% USSF, 15k or 38% USAF/NRO/other (for now), and 5k Army/Navy). This also opens the door for the US Army and US Navy to have combatant command authority over the joint space forces in a more meaningful, efficient, and combat-lethal manner. To be fair, the USAF/ AFSPC did not use space forces as a combat multiplier or a lethal combat force. When US Army's GEN James Dickinson takes over as USSPACECOM commander, the joint space forces will gain a combatant commander whose command experience spans strategic, operational, and tactical command and operations experience. Nothing against US Space Force Gen Jay Raymond, but the lethal application of military power looks very different from a Minuteman missile silo or Joint Space Operations Center console compared to an air defense artillery battery or a tactical operations center in Afghanistan or Iraq. By creating a separate branch of the military, the DoD gains more unity of command at the strategic, operational and tactical levels (rather than a purely strategic support function as it was under AFSPC).
Point 1: Personnel and expertise. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) was a major command with about 35,000 personnel, but not all of those personnel were entirely space-focused. Also there were other space cadre spread throughout the Air Force serving at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Some of the space cadre were being moved in and out of the space community every 3-4 years. By creating a separate branch of the military, the US Space Force (USSF) can now manage its cadre of space personnel in a more focused manner.
Point 2: Funding. The AFSPC budget was about $10B per year (using round numbers) out of the entire, joint space budget of $12B. There is $38B of funding that was used as a "pass-through" to the intelligence community for classified programs. The US Air Force (USAF) budget is about $200B per year, minus the $10B for AFSPC and the $38B pass-through, leaving the USAF to "execute" a $200B with "only" $152B. The separation of of the USSF from the USAF means that the USAF owns almost all of the budget that it must execute and report to Congress, and now the USSF gets its own budget that it does not need to compete against fighter jets, bombers, and some portion of the classified pass-through. Ideally, the USSF would have about 50% control over that intelligence community pass-through. By creating a separate branch of the military, both the USAF and the USSF can better manage the funding they receive.
Point 3: Unity of command and new applications of space power. Before the creation of USSF, a good amount of the space forces in all branches was shared with air, ground, sea, marine, and cyber forces. Around the same time that the USSF was created, the Department of Defense stood up an eleventh unified command, US Space Command (USSPACECOM). Under this construct, USSF has unity of command in terms of the organize, train, and equip function for the joint space forces, and the majority of those functions ($10B out of $12B budget (83%), and the plurality of the now 40k personnel (20k or 50% USSF, 15k or 38% USAF/NRO/other (for now), and 5k Army/Navy). This also opens the door for the US Army and US Navy to have combatant command authority over the joint space forces in a more meaningful, efficient, and combat-lethal manner. To be fair, the USAF/ AFSPC did not use space forces as a combat multiplier or a lethal combat force. When US Army's GEN James Dickinson takes over as USSPACECOM commander, the joint space forces will gain a combatant commander whose command experience spans strategic, operational, and tactical command and operations experience. Nothing against US Space Force Gen Jay Raymond, but the lethal application of military power looks very different from a Minuteman missile silo or Joint Space Operations Center console compared to an air defense artillery battery or a tactical operations center in Afghanistan or Iraq. By creating a separate branch of the military, the DoD gains more unity of command at the strategic, operational and tactical levels (rather than a purely strategic support function as it was under AFSPC).
(7)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Note that the numbers above were based on earlier projections from FY20. I have seen proposals for a $20B space budget and a $10B cyber budget for FY21.
(1)
(0)
Because the Air Force will capitalize on the situation, eat 90% of their budget, and the Space Force will be left eating scraps.
Same thing that happened to the Marine Corps since it was organized under the Department of the Navy...
Same thing that happened to the Marine Corps since it was organized under the Department of the Navy...
(2)
(0)
The Air Force fought for years to keep it under them. The Space Force concept has been being pitched since President Obama was in office. The AF didn’t want to lose the funding that would go if their space assets were pulled. The decision was made before President Trump took office to make it a separate branch, but it wasn’t fully funded until after he took over. For several years military and civilian policy makers pushed for a separate branch but the AF lobbied heavily against it.
(2)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
To amplify your point, some version of the space force had been proposed by multiple Congressmen going back to the days of President G.W. Bush. At one point it made more sense for the Air Force to fight the idea of an independent branch, because as you pointed out, the Air Force would lose a huge chunk of funding. As the GWOT kept trudging on, the space budget and the pass-through budget for the intelligence community became too much of a drain on the Air Force, which just wanted to build new fighter jets, long range strike bombers, new tankers, and new hypersonic missile systems (offense and defense). By letting the Space Force loose and hopefully pawning that intelligence community pass-through off on the Space Force, the Air Force can now focus on its priority of air power (and less on air and space power).
(2)
(0)
Sir, I imagine the budget requirements of space operations look better as a separate entity rather than doubling, if not more, the budget proposals of the AF.
(2)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Absolutely. Think of this as a mutually beneficial, and amicable divorce between the USAF and USAF. Doubling the space budget within the USAF is like letting the ex-spouse double the spending budget while the spouse hands money over to a side boyfriend/girlfriend/non-binary-friend. Divorcing the space budget from USAF lets USSF spend all the monies on space stuff while the USAF spends its monies on air stuff--and doubling the space operations budget is actually closer to doubling while the two are divorced.
(2)
(0)
Great reads. There's also the notion of mission dilution, i.e. the more you do it, the less good you are with any particular element. The days of wooden ships showed why you have Marines. The trick here will be figuring out the interfaces with all the services to achieve that force multiplier aspect we forever chase. We tend to use these vague words when we really mean "the ability to kill or defend more with less". Second aspect is critical mass. Remember the adage pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered? Sizing and mission limits will be essential. As with any new thing, there will be aspects of something in search of a mission. That's what the growing pains sort out.
(1)
(0)
The Space Force is it's own branch but they are still under the Dept of the Air Force. Just like the Marine Corps is it's own branch but falls under the Dept of the Navy. So technically they are under the Air Force.
(1)
(0)
Does this mean that Astronauts will be in USSF instead of being a conglomeration of different services?
So not any inter service rivalry among the spacemen.
So not any inter service rivalry among the spacemen.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Just as all the services retain some "air forces", all of the services will retain some "space forces". Unless the USSF manpower authorization is increased to the levels that AFSPC had, the USAF will actually have more space forces than the USSF. Over time that will correct itself, but even at the ideal levels USSF will have 90% of the space forces, and USAF, USA, and USN/USMC will split the remaining 10% even after the USSF gets inter-service transfers.
Years from now, there will still be astronauts from all the services. USAF and USN will still be splitting pilots in the astronaut program. All the other services will be splitting the other astronaut roles as payload commanders, experiment leaders, et cetera.
Years from now, there will still be astronauts from all the services. USAF and USN will still be splitting pilots in the astronaut program. All the other services will be splitting the other astronaut roles as payload commanders, experiment leaders, et cetera.
(2)
(0)
I see it as because the Army also had a large piece of the space domain. Instead of bringing one under another (army to air force) they decided to allow for near independent operation from USA and USAF, along with the budget and place among the JCS. This leaves only Cyber as not having its own force within the 5 domains (though many see 7 domains including info and human).
I foresee someday the Space Force will become larger than the Air Force and them almost switching places with AF under SF rather than SF under AF.
I foresee someday the Space Force will become larger than the Air Force and them almost switching places with AF under SF rather than SF under AF.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Sort of. If you are the US Army, you would rather take your $180B and organize, train, and equip for Army priorities and send your best space cadre to USSPACECOM to use that operationally relevant experience to command the space assets built by someone else, i.e. the US Space Force. All service rivalry aside, I would rather give the Army commanders the opportunity to command space forces and give Air Force/ Space Force "materiel leaders" the opportunity to build those systems. Note the nuanced use of "materiel leader" and commander. This is not meant to take away from the command experience by the likes of Space Force Gen Raymond, but this arrangement does better align to each of the services' strong suits when coupled with the creation of USSPACECOM.
Unless the overall military grows, the US Space Force really cannot grow much beyond 40k personnel, maybe 50k if it can gain intelligence community personnel. A good amount of the new US Space Force is actually cyber, so it appears that for now the creation of an independent cyber force is now further out. There was some inertia gaining to create an independent cyber and space force or a separate cyber force, but that inertia is gone for now. The joint cyber budget and personnel requirements are lost in the noise compared to the joint space budget and personnel requirements. Right now the joint cyber budget of $5B is about half of the joint space budget, but it is peanut butter spread throughout all the services and interleaved with intelligence, information operations, science & technology, and cybersecurity of air/sea/land/marine/space systems. Maybe in a few years there will be a concentration of cyber assets that will warrant in an independent service, but it may depend on the success or failure of the independent space force.
Unless the overall military grows, the US Space Force really cannot grow much beyond 40k personnel, maybe 50k if it can gain intelligence community personnel. A good amount of the new US Space Force is actually cyber, so it appears that for now the creation of an independent cyber force is now further out. There was some inertia gaining to create an independent cyber and space force or a separate cyber force, but that inertia is gone for now. The joint cyber budget and personnel requirements are lost in the noise compared to the joint space budget and personnel requirements. Right now the joint cyber budget of $5B is about half of the joint space budget, but it is peanut butter spread throughout all the services and interleaved with intelligence, information operations, science & technology, and cybersecurity of air/sea/land/marine/space systems. Maybe in a few years there will be a concentration of cyber assets that will warrant in an independent service, but it may depend on the success or failure of the independent space force.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Maj Walter Kilar - In regards to the growth of the SF, I meant in a good 50 or more years as other nations develop more involved space programs, or once Mars becomes possible for manned travel. It's a little science fiction-y but in the chance that space becomes less cyber/satellite and involves more manned missions that may allow the SF to grow beyond what you mentioned.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
CW2 (Join to see) - Maybe. In 50-100 years let us assume that we have a "freight train" of manned missions to Mars and the Moon. The Outer Space Treaty unambiguously prohibits establishment of military bases and fortifications, but it ambiguously prohibits the militarization and weaponization of orbital space. This means that unless there are a lot of "space merchants" being targeted by "space pirates", there would not be a lot of USSF military members deployed into space. If space becomes a highly manned, global commons, I could see the rise of a "space guard" (like the US Coast Guard) or private security on each space vehicle and extraterrestrial land facility.
Just to reiterate, the intent of the USSF is not to send military members into space, but to protect US space assets such as GPS and missile defense, and to extend military power to/through/from space. All of that is currently done from the ground. In 100 years if there are only 10-50 astronauts on Mars and 100-200 on the Moon, there is no need to deploy military there under any branch unless we are engaging in combat on those celestial bodies and nullifying the Outer Space Treaty.
Just to reiterate, the intent of the USSF is not to send military members into space, but to protect US space assets such as GPS and missile defense, and to extend military power to/through/from space. All of that is currently done from the ground. In 100 years if there are only 10-50 astronauts on Mars and 100-200 on the Moon, there is no need to deploy military there under any branch unless we are engaging in combat on those celestial bodies and nullifying the Outer Space Treaty.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next