Author Topic: Space Force  (Read 3695 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8681
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Space Force
« Reply #20 on: 04/11/2017 12:32 AM »
How would SAC fit in? It's pretty heavily involved in space ops, which you can't just separate it out of it's air ops. Does Rep. Rogers Intend for the NRO to be under this command? There are reasons it exists as a civilian (sort of) operation.

SAC hasn't existed 1992.  Its space ops were transferred to AF Space Command in the 80's. 
NRO would be still separate as it is now but would be supported by the new service vs the Air Force

Offline Rummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • CA
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Space Force
« Reply #21 on: 04/12/2017 07:04 AM »
I think Congressman Rogers' remarks are spot on... the Air Force still places its prestige positions with pilots and space is less glamorous. From a clarity of mission perspective, separating out space would be beneficial. They should do the same with Cyber.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Force
« Reply #22 on: 04/12/2017 01:28 PM »
Thoughts on Congressman Rogers' call to institute a new Space Force that is a schism of the Air Force?
Quote from: Rogers
Rogers continued. “How can we have the world’s best national security space program if we don’t grow and retain the best men and women to lead it, and give them the budget and authority they need?”  "The Air Force is not structured to educate and elevate a future generation of space leadership"

Rogers said the Armed Services committee needs to begin debating the issue, but he does not expect radical change immediately.  “That said, I believe reform is needed. We must start now…This is a system that moves too slowly, and we don’t have the time to wait..”
At first glance, the reorganization will not create new leaders of the future.

1) talent and how they gain real experience to lead current and new capabilities
2) from the just say no party, using the Constitution (law today is based on 'precedence') when if fits their convenience, the system moves too slow.

The Space Force does not solve talent and experience.  *If talent and experience* is given an objective and funding, they often find solutions seeking a variety of sources regardless of their organization.  WWI, WWII, Apollo are examples on the grand scale.  either is not sufficient, it requires a will to cooperate--difficult to do in these days of 'competition' and 'isolationalism'

Any new Space Force would not be the offshoot of any of the existing services. It would be entirely separate, drawing appropriate personnel from all the services to fill the needed skill sets to get started. Eventually it would be staffed by new people drawn from civilian life in the same way that the existing services are staffed today.
This describes the process, but no rationale why it would work, especially if funding for the skill set disappeared or shifted a decade or so ago.  Do they pick up talent that was let go, for example.

The Allies of World War II cooperated extensively in the development and manufacture of new and existing technologies to support military operations and intelligence gathering during the Second World War--no separate departments. 

Folks are starting to understand that Citizen's United and gerrymandered districts have created artificial walls to the ways of conducting real business of the past regardless of how the USG is organized.  Outsourcing has played a role too in talent and experience.