Intel, AF Sats Must Go Separate Ways: Kehler

Intel, AF Sats Must Go Separate Ways: Kehler

Donald Rumsfeld made much of his reputation before becoming Bush’s defense secretary when he recommended in 2001 that the intelligence community and military work closely togther when they built satellites. Known as black-white space integration. this principle has been the bedrock of space acquisition since then. The argument that so much of the technology and expertise used to build spy and military satellites is identical or related has proven difficult to naysay.

The end of black-white space integration may be at hand. The man long identified as one of its most devoted followers, Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, the head of Air Force Space Command and former deputy commander at Strategic Command, told the intelligence community that “this approach is posing insurmountable problems, and those problems are going to get worse as we look to the future.” Even worse, he said this approach means that both the inteligence community’s strategic needs and the military’s tactical needs are being shortcahged. “One size does not fit all when it comes to reconnaissance satellites any more than it fits all when it comesto uniforms or boots or anything else that we’re doing,” Kehler said Oct. 30 at GeoInt, the annual gathering of the geospatial intelligence community. The heads of, or senior officials from the NSA, CIA, NGA and the Pentagon all attended the conference.

As Kehler noted, his “bold statement… challenges some of the basic foundation on which our space reconnaissance structure and in fact the entire national security space enterprise is built.”

The problems is that, while the intelligence mcomunity and the miltiary can use each other’s data, the types of information they need to use differs substantially. “U.S. forces will increasingly need a space architecture that is responsive to military purposes, that can support operational plans, that are configured to optimally serve particular tactical needs and that can assuredly contribute to the joint fight,” Kehler said. Then he offered a prime example of just what has been wrong with the attempts to merge black and white space.

“The nation has attempted for over a decade now, to deploy a cutting-edge space-based radar system, yet we have not fielded such a system for the war fighter. Why not? We have a set of requirements, we see the value in night-time and all-weather reconnaissance and tracking, we have the technical capability to build such a system, and while likely it would be expensive, just as Jeff Harris said this morning, we could prioritize and fund such a system if that’s what we really wanted to do,” Kehler argued. The problem is that the intellgience community and the military “can’t reconcile the requirements. We are not able to sit across the table from one another and say I can bend on this one; not because we are digging our heels in arbitrarily but because the mission needs of both have become so great that reconciling the requirements on one platform is not what we’re going to be able to do. In essence, we’ve got more requirements than can be met with a single system.”

What will fix these problems?  First, and most important, would be changes to the requirements process, Kehler said. Troops need “flexible and responsive tasking and mission planning to support operations, to include high-quality resolution for target planning and execution; frequent revisit rates over the target of interest; broad open ocean surveillance for maritime applications; timeliness in tasking to delivery; releasable data to coalition forces or unclassified data when that’s necessary; system that can be readily available for dissemination and deployment; common data formats; network connectivity and speed; interoperability; queuing, correlation, fusion; assuredness in tasking.”

Defining those requirements is something the country doesn’t do very well so “we start programs the wrong way, without a clear understanding of what requirements we’re trying to satisfy and without a funding profile or a schedule that matches. And then we wonder, five years in, eight years, how did we do this wrong,” Kehler said.

Getting there will require “some new relationships among service, departmental, and national organizations,” the general said.

A senior national security space expert told me he was shocked by Kehler’s change of heart and hoped it would lead to improved requirements generation by the Air Force and the intelligence community. But this expert said changing the attitudes crafted over most of the last decade will be very difficult to change.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

We’ve got plenty of money to build whatever we want for whatever purpose. Right? Wrong! The times have gone where everyone can fund their pet projects and not have to coordinate with other agencies to get the best bang for the buck.

Sounds like USAF brass suddenly realize that people are actually listening to John Young. Better shut that down post-haste. They’ve got a vested interest in showing that a unified team is bad–because if a unified team is workable, the next logical step is to take space (and the associated budget) away from USAF!

What? Rumsfeld was wrong about something? I was in Space Command and let me tell ya, integrating sucked and the sats went over budget quite a bit! Keeping them seperate with free up quite a bit of money! Good Job Gen. Kehler!

He has it right. Ever hear of ORS? That was supposed to help everyone. How bout TSAT? Warfighter needs secure data at higher speed. BASIC? These programs are getting mulled over in every budget. Let the IC folks and services build to their specific requirements, merge the requirements with software on the ground, feed the hungry at the Combat Support Agencies when required; give the warfighter what they need! Or we can just give GM/Ford and Chrysler the $25B to use in fat cat bonuses and UAW payrolls.

unfortunately everyone will focus on the headline, not what the general really said. His basic point is we do not do requirements well. We commit to build space systems to satisfy everyone’s wishes without a clear understanding of what the spacecraft will cost. The General is suggesting doing the development planning work before committing to a program. Development planning is a process to determine what each performance requirement adds to technical complexity and ultimately cost of the program.

Ed: The thing is, that’s how everyone USED to do it. Then Rumsfeld came along and said, basically, that everything satellite should be exactly the same only some are labeled ‘USAF’ and some are labeled ‘NRO’, just like JSF was exactly the same only with “NAVY” or “MARINES” or “USAF” painted on the side. Then he put a bunch of USAF guys in charge of everything, and they immediately cancelled every intel development program because intel sats don’t fly at Mach 3 and drop bombs on things.

Rumsfeld is an arrogant @$$. It was his way or your career was over. Bush was a dumb SOB for keeping Rummy on as SecDef as long as he did. Rumsfeld, I hope you burn in he||.

Keeping the development and acquisitions process separate is a great idea. The requirements are definitely different, and maybe the Air Force and NRO will subsequently be able to say No! to requirements that are not affordable, without the turf battles we have now.
Maybe having one person in charge of AF and NRO capabilities with separate development is the way to go.

Is the General crying publicly??? (sniff, sniff) His command isn’t big enough and he’s having problems smoothing relations on the other side of the fence? It’s not completely his fault, but he hasn’t helped any either. He’s grown up in the service watching and working space programs so he’s no green banana. “Congress, can you help please, for the sake of our warfighters??” Someday General you will be Commander of the Universe and all space will be yours.

Separation of requirements is not a new idea. Hell — that’s why many agencies come to fruition. But the contractors make twice as much money if they can double charge the govt for making 2 identical systems, but claim they serve different purposes. It’s been that way for years and Kehler and Harris aren’t green to that, in fact both have supported because space technology is hot, creates jobs, and new capabilities. Only thing is, you need a leader with balls that will make it happen, like Richard Branson or Warren Buffett.

Shadow: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re suggesting that a submachine gun and an anti-vehicle rifle are the same thing because they both shoot bullets at stuff.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement