The United States Space Force – the sixth and newest branch of the United States military – was conceived to secure the nation’s interest in, from, and to space. It also organizes, trains, and equips personnel to conduct global space operations, and that includes developing combat-ready capabilities in, from, and to space to deter, and if necessary, defeat any potential threat to America’s space capabilities.
Yet, where it is easy to understand how aircraft, warships, and literal boots on the ground are employed to defend America’s interest, it is less clear how space fits into the equation – and more importantly what weapons will be used in such a role. The Department of Defense has no plans (at least none that have been announced) for a fleet of space warships but that doesn’t mean that the combat systems that were once only in the domain of science fiction aren’t already taking shape in the real world.
Speaking at the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium earlier this month, General Chance Saltzman, the United States Space Force’s chief of space operations, said that China and Russia are already developing space-based weapons and the U.S. needs to keep pace.
Kinetic and Non-Kinetic Weapons
To achieve “space superiority” in a conflict – which would be similar to air superiority over a contested battlespace – the U.S. Space Force will need to employ “kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities through disruption, degradation, and even destruction, if necessary,” Saltzman said in prepared remarks at the symposium.
“It includes things like orbital warfare and electromagnetic warfare, and its counterspace operations can be employed for both offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant commands,” the space chief added.
During a round-table with reporters, Saltzman explained there were three categories of weapons that the Space Force is now focused on. According to a report from ArsTechnica, that includes direct-energy weapons (DEWs) like lasers or microwave signals.
In addition, the Space Force is looking at radio frequency jamming systems and other kinetic weapons – like missiles and rockets – that could disable or even destroy enemy spacecraft and satellites.
“It includes things like orbital warfare and electromagnetic warfare,” Saltzman added.
The weapons could be positioned in space – possibly on satellites – or on the ground. Already, America’s adversaries may have a head start on their development, and the U.S. will need to catch up.
“We’re seeing in our adversary developmental capabilities, they’re pursuing all of those,” Saltzman said. “We’re not pursuing all of those yet.”
Space – a New Domain for Warfare
Science fiction might remind us that space is the final frontier, but it is also just the next domain where wars could be fought. The Space Force is still defining what orbital warfare could look like, and as Ares Technica explained, even what it means.
The first combat actions almost certainly took place on land, but when and where is lost to the ages. It is known that the first recorded sea battle, at least with details of the action, was the Battle of the Delta fought around 1175 BC when the Ancient Egyptians defeated the Sea People.
The first use of the airplane in combat occurred in 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War in Libya, while tanks made their debut five years later on the Western Front during the First World War. Those innovations changed the dynamic, and space could be just as different.
“None of us were alive when the other domains started being contested,” Saltzman said. “It was just natural. It was just a part of the way things work.”
The space domain will offer different challenges, but those will be overcome.
“That shift from benign environment to a war-fighting domain, that was pretty abrupt,” Saltzman said. “We had to mature language. We had to understand what was the right way to talk about that progression. So as a Space Force dedicated to it, we’ve been progressing our vocabulary. We’ve been saying, ‘This is what we want to focus on.'”
Ground-based vs. Space Based
It was last September that Space Systems Command also laid out the benefits of lasers that could be employed either from the ground or in space-based platforms.
“Having a ground-based weapon gives the adversary a little more power boost, and they can maintain that system on the ground, but in orbit, you can get a lot closer to the target,” said U.S. Space Force Maj. Neal Carter, Space Systems Command’s (SSC) deputy director of intelligence. “There are trade-offs for both of those, and we expect to see more examples of this in the coming years.”
Carter laid out examples of how such a laser could be employed.
“If we have an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) satellite that we’re using to observe airfields, ships, missiles, or ground troops – all things that the joint force and the national command authority need to build intelligence assessments – and there’s a directed energy weapon with a laser dazzler or other type of emitter that’s engaging and cooking that satellite, the sensors on that bird are fried,” Carter said. “If we can’t see our targets on the ground, then we can’t get that intel to the warfighter, the commander, or the president. It’s a significant threat if adversaries can go from satellite to satellite, pinpointing and targeting our ISR birds.”
The level of damage, whether it is temporary or permanent, could depend on exposure time and proximity. Carter added that for an “on-orbit weapon,” it may also depend on how close the adversary can get before the rogue satellite is spotted and countermeasures are activated.
