My colleague Paul Scharre recently wrote that the development of a #SpaceForce is misguided. His argument is based on the assumption that it will generally be cheaper to build antisatellite weapons than to produce resilient space systems. Therefore, he argues, space should only be one piece of a larger C4ISR and precision-navigation-and-timing system with terrestrial-based options that use drone swarms and advance battle networks.
Paul is not wrong to suggest America’s military advantage cannot rely on space systems alone. Resiliency does require dispersal and variety. What he gets wrong, however, is the assumption that space systems will continue to sit on the wrong side of the cost proposition compared to ASAT weapons.
To be sure, this assumption reflects the U.S. military’s past and current practice of procuring and relying on large “crown jewel” C4ISR and PNT space systems. Such systems, which can cost billions of dollars, sit in earth orbit like bright, shiny targets for an eager adversary. But this won’t be the future of space procurement.
The development of the space domain for economic purposes is increasing like never before. The commercial space sector has introduced rapid innovation into an area that has traditionally been dominated by slow, selective government acquisition processes. The commercial sector has accomplished this by developing new markets that allow companies to assume more research and development risk than was previously acceptable.
Read the Full Article at Defense One
Read Technology and National Security Director Paul Scharre's Rebuttal: The US Military Should Not Be Doubling Down on Space
More from CNAS
CommentarySharper: The Budget
The defense budget and its $715 million price tag accounts for much of the U.S. government's discretionary spending every year, but where will (and should) this money go in th...
By Anna Pederson
VideoThree elements of Army’s iron triangle equally critical for United States, says defense analyst
Billy Fabian, adjunct senior fellow for the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security and senior analyst at Govini discusses the Army's iron triangle on Govern...
By Billy Fabian
CommentaryThe US Army’s new iron triangle: The coming budget crunch and its implications for modernization
Each side of the iron triangle comes with its own implications for doctrine, force structure, readiness, posture and modernization....
By Billy Fabian
PodcastDefining the China Challenge: The Future of the U.S. Navy
On this episode of Chain Reaction, Aaron speaks with Chris Dougherty, senior fellow for defense at CNAS and the co-lead of the CNAS gaming lab, about a recent article he wrote...
By Chris Dougherty