The role of space in the military arena is set to intensify in upcoming years, with nations apart from the United States also looking to be more proactive in the realm. The MilSpace 2007 conference, which took place in Brussels last week, came at an interesting time with the Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test still fresh in the collective mind. Many speakers referred to the test as a "wake-up call" for countries – particularly the U.S. – to consider the capabilities that the Chinese may have in space. James Clay Moltz, deputy director and research professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, warned of the growing threat from China. He said "China has emerged as a major rival in space. They have a strong cadre of young space scientists, and are producing more than we (the U.S.) are. The Chinese test has told us that we all need to start talking more. I think if you saw the Indian reaction to the Chinese test, that was quite frightening." According to local press reports, Indian Defense officials commented on the possibilities of space warfare in the immediate aftermath of the Chinese exercise.

Col. Daniel Lewandowski, head of combat air for the NATO Joint Air Power Competence Center, also highlighted the fact that China was set to become the Americans’ main rival in space. He said "there are shrinking military budgets everywhere except China. China’s defense budget is really increasing. I think we will see a slow growth, but China will become a formidable space power in the 2020 to 2040 time frame."

U.S. Perspective

For the U.S., competition in space is nothing new, and began around 50 years ago when the U.S. and the former Soviet Union engaged in a battle for space superiority. U.S. military mindthink still places a great deal of importance on space. In a wide-ranging presentation, Col. Patrick Rayermann, chief of the U.S. Army’s space and missile defense division, spelled out the importance of space from a military perspective, commenting that "convergence of war skills and space technology is beneficial. Recent U.S. national space policy represents continuity with previous U.S. space policies; it reflects an increasing recognition that it is vital to the national interests of the U.S."

In terms of how space helps the U.S. Army, Rayermann said "space has helped foster the trend towards the information society. It helps us with mapping, [understanding] the environment, etc. We can also monitor human activity. As more nations develop these capabilities, this awareness is available to all. Space helps the U.S. Army do its job better. Space helps us in terms of providing a network and protecting that network. It can also help us with the terrain, giving us information on where opposition forces are. It also gives us the ability to have forces operate in extended environments. Space capabilities are able to help us improve our logistics."

However, there are a number of areas where the U.S. Army is looking to improve its space capabilities. Rayermann added "we identified a number of priorities for next-generation space systems. These are enhanced satcoms, early missile warning, space control, persistent surveillance, weather, terrain and environmental monitoring."

Among Rayermann’s comments was the desire to get satellites launched more quickly, and even used the phrase of having satellites "on demand," which came across as a particularly revolutionary concept. He said "we want to have the ability to launch on demand. We want to be able to do this in a timescale of days. It may or may not happen by 2010 [but] we want on-demand launchers. We are looking at some innovative ideas to develop responsive launch. We want to get it in operation within a week if we need too. That would truly be transformational."

While one of the main themes of Rayermann’s presentation was a sense that the U.S. had to retain space superiority, he also promoted a spirit of reaching out to the international community for cooperation. Indeed, he noted a need to tap into international expertise to stay ahead of the game, saying "we need your help. We need future innovations in terms of technology refresh. We need to keep models over time which will allow us to bring technology on a much more regular basis. We do want to continue international cooperation and work with industry that is not U.S.-based. New threats are serious, and capabilities must catch up with requirements. Technology is not the main obstacle; affordability is our challenge. We have to develop acquisition paradigms that bring models and new technologies every two to five years, rather than seven to 20 years."

Smaller Satellites for Military Purposes

With the emphasis on greater speed to market and reduced cost, one of the companies that may be able to take advantage of this is Surrey Satellite Technology (SSTL), a United Kingdom-based company specializing in the production of smaller satellites. In a bullish presentation, Stuart Eves, SSTL’s principal engineer for military systems, said "we are changing the approach to military space. We are changing the economics of space. We are surfing the wave of technological development. We do a range of satellites. Our smallest satellite (the Nanosat) [weighs] less than 10 kilograms. Our biggest satellite is around 750 kilograms. We are stealing technology from devices such as laptops, digital cameras, etc. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in processing capability and reliability. We have reduced the entry costs to get into space. You are looking at 18 to 24 months to get into orbit."

Another undercurrent to the show was the sense that the satellite industry had come full circle in terms of satellite production. Initially, small satellites were put into space, before a trend arose towards bigger, more powerful satellites. Now the industry is moving back to seeing the advantages of smaller satellites. Eves added "we think small satellites are a good way of reacting to increased demand. You can have clusters of satellites operating together. If you lose one satellite, you don’t lose everything. Small satellites have a reached a level of capability that is relevant for the military/security sectors. We see a suite of small satellites as the way forward. The numbers of applications are growing due to increasing capabilities. We are starting to compete with big satellites. However, they will not go away completely. Our mantra is ’80 percent of capability at 10 percent of the price.’"

While saying there was still a role for big satellites, Eves believed the mix of short time schedules, low costs and strong reach will give small satellite manufacturers such as SSTL an edge going forward in the military space. U.S. Air Force Lt Col. Michael Lakos, a fellow at the U.S. Air Force College of International and Security Studies, echoed those sentiments by saying "the Europeans have adopted this small satellite approach. The community has come full circle. Small, tactical satellites make sense."

Over the Next 20 Years

In another bullish presentation, Lakos expected huge changes in space capabilities throughout the next 20 years, and urged that the U.S. needs to stay ahead. Echoing some of Rayermann’s comments, Lakos said "the value of space power will change drastically over the course of the next 20 years." Lakos also believes that terrorists could look to attack space assets sooner rather than later, and may have already done so. He said "terrorists have mastered air warfare [on 9/11]. Space is the next logical medium for terrorists to act in. Space capabilities greatly aid the U.S. against adversaries, however, these highly technical systems are not without vulnerabilities. You look at Galaxy-4 satellite disruption in May 1998; could this have been a terrorist action? While international terrorism will not be defeated by space, intelligence is critical in the battle against terrorism. For example, can space assets be used to track a terrorist organization’s financial network? Space technology will allow military forces to attack targets in heavily defended regions."

Among the most controversial aspects of Lakos’ presentation were his views on space combat – something he believes will happen sooner rather than later. He commented "the U.S. has a military advantage in the air, sea, and ground. We need to prepare for space combat. We must look to continue to invest in space technology [toward] achieving space supremacy. The time has come to increase our presence in space. Preparing to conduct military operations in space may prevent a space Pearl Harbor. Space will become its own warfighting medium. Space warfare is on the horizon. We need to be able to protect our own assets."

Another concern among the panelists’ talking points was what other nations will do in space. More and more nations are looking to gain space capabilities. Moltz said, "Bush administration politics go back to the 1950s, and the notion of space dominance has become a key notion. My concerns are not what China will do next, but what will other countries do." In a guarded attack on U.S. space policy, Andrew Brookes, an aerospace analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies said "the U.S. sees space as the new high ground, and attaches high priority to controlling this domain. Surveillance is a key part in U.S. space policy. It sees space superiority as its destiny. The language they use is very belligerent in tone. The U.S. is seeking to dominate space, and this frightens others. Many believe no one has the right to own space."

Europe

There is little doubt that Europe has a less aggressive approach towards space than the U.S., however, there are opportunities for organizations such as the European Space Agency (ESA) to be more progressive. Frank Zeppenfeldt, multimedia satellite engineer at ESA said "in terms of the military segment, we see more demand for satellite applications. We would like to be supportive of the European industry to capture that market. We think in the future, there will be a market for defense services. We are not afraid to talk to military customers. There are a build-up of test beds in the military arena. We have been approached by industry to support [unmanned aerial vehicle] terminal development. We think this is interesting for the industry. We are seeing more projects used and tested by military users."

Many European nations are also looking to space to boost their security and defense capabilities. One of the interesting case studies mentioned was an examination of how the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFIR) highlighted how space plays a vital role. Richard Olsen, chief scientist of FFIR’s land and air systems division, explained that "we want to support the Norwegian military forces in developing technology and capabilities exploiting space. In Norway, we have a strong focus on maritime surveillance. We have large and remote areas to monitor [and] there are a lot of valuable natural resources, renewable and non-renewable. So, we need to have maritime situational awareness. Satellite capabilities enable us to improve our position on issues such fisheries control, disaster response, ships in distress, oil spills, [and] territorial defense. Norway is well- situated for using satellite imagery from polar-orbiting satellites."

It could look to extend its satellite capabilities still further in upcoming years, Olsen said. "We are exploring possibilities for a demonstrator satellite, both nationally and with international partners. Improvements of the surveillance capability to classify and identify vessels would be highly desirable."

–Mark Holmes