MILNET Brief
  Unmanned Space Vehicles -- USVs, 3/1/2005
"Flexible response is best provided with a small CONUS based fleet of TAVs equipped with a variety of payloads including kinetic energy weapons, compact laser weapons and special forces squads. "

- Through The Looking GLASS, GLobal Area Strike System, Vision 2025 White Paper, USAF Air University,  8/1996.

"The cruise missiles will be referred to as standoff hypersonic missiles with attack capability (SHMAC)..."

- A Hypersonic Attack Platform, The S3 Concept, Vision 2025 White Paper, USAF Air University,  8/1996.
A hard covered hardcopy of this briefing is available for purchase online, click here.

US Air Force Space Command Strategic Master Plan  ||  Unmanned Systems

Survey of Current UAVs  ||  U.S. Anti-Satellite Systems


From the two quotes above, one might assume that while some Air Force officers and their faculty advisors were expanding their horizons to peer into future space systems, they had yet to integrate lessons learned from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles -- UAVs, in combat situations.  Since Bosnia, Afghanistan and the second Gulf War, it has become increasingly clear that UAVs represent a huge force multipler, whether it be remotely controlled for all or portions of flight, or even a fully autonomous UAV.

It is also easy to understand the manned platform bias of some officers in the the Air Force.  After all, the Air Force, through its Army Air Corps roots, has been flying piloted vehicles to great success since well before World War II.  In addition, the Air Force also has colleagues supporting manned space programs in Navy aviators as well -- witness the number of Air Force and Navy astronauts in the early manned spaced program as well as continuing on in the Shuttle program.  Not surprisingly, these highly capable folks with all "the right stuff" have tended to turn a blind eye to unmanned systems.  That situation is changing however.

We should note from the outset -- the concept of semi or fully autonomous space borne or space based systems for military missions is still highly theoretical.  Today's military is adept at building and launching large satellites, and smaller so called "TAC-SATS" or Micro-Satellites.  It is not clear whether the Air Force has embarked on any USV programs.

Having said, we see promising reports.  For instance, the Air Force Research Laboratory was reported (March 2000, in a Air War College paper 22) as working on Micro-Satellites to conduct on-orbit inspections as well as orbit corrections (see XSS-10 and XSS-11 below).  While these are reported to be ground controlled, future technology improvements could (speculation) enable autonomous units that routinely service satellites on an automated maintenance program, or be modified to destroy rather than repair.  These devices may be the precursor to, or be publicly acknowledged "colleagues" of "black budget" devices that would match our definition of a USV.

Also, the U.S. Air Force Space Command has published the Strategic Master Plan for FY06 And Beyond.  The document makes it clear the Air Force mindset is at least engaged in on-orbit battlespace planning and development, although funding for such development is not at all clear.  Another document, the USAF Transformation Flight Plan sets out specific vehicles and technologies for future space based and space borne operations.  We should also note that the work appears to build on work done in 1996 as part of the Vision 2025 Study.

On the flip side of the promising results are the numerous cancellations of important space systems that frankly make it appear the U.S. is cutting future developments in space, namely projects involved with ther replacement for the Shuttle Transport System -- STS, also known as theSpace Shutte. The Development Section below goes into more detail on that topic

This brief will look at near term as well as long term futures for USVs, realizing that there is a dearth of material on actual proclaimed USV programs.  This lack of public information may be due to the cloak of secrecy already attached to the world's military space programs, the high road having been the most secret of military programs for decades.  Or it could simply mean that the world's military is not yet engaged in designing or building such systems.


Introducing USV Systems

A definition for a USV might read something like:
"A semi- or fully autonomous spacecraft intended to independently perform some range of automated military tasks in space which is intended to act as a force multiplier and without the necessity of a human in space."
We will artificially draw a distinction between existing military intelligence gathering, navigation or communication satellites as USVs, however, in our development section, we will list a few  of these just for completeness.  What we envision as a USV is the space equivalent of a UUV -- Unmanned Underwater Vehicle or a UAV -- Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

One other note.  For years, UAVs were called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.  Somewhere along the line, the Air Force has given over to using the term Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles.  We don't know if this is some wretched political correctness at work or whether there is a simian piloted aircraft out there.  MILNET will continue to used the traditional terminology.

We will also differentiate a USV from typical attack missiles like an air-to-air missile, however, there is a gray line obvious to even the most casual observer.  Some of today's fire-and-forget missiles launched from aircraft, might easily be adapted to operation in space and demonstrate a high degree of intelligence and autonomy.  Those with compute engines that follow guidance from their built-in seekers are especially important potential prototypes of future space borne systems.  Consider such a missile redesigned to identify and track an on-orbit vehicle and if commanded by ground (or perhaps a nearby on-orbit human) persue and attack that vehicle. This would clearly fall within our definition of a USV.


Missions

The general viewpoint on future space missions is perhaps best illustrated in the text from the Vision 2025 white paper, SPACENET: On Orbit Support for 2025, in which the authors state:

"First, Support to the war fighters will be the priority of the military space program.  The theater commander requires reliable, timely support from space to utilize all war fighting assets.  This space support includes communications, navigation, weather, missile launch warning, and data transfer.  Although intelligence is not addressed in this report, on-orbit support provides sufficient processing, storage, and transmission capability to fully support the intelligence architecture...."

"Second, the satellite command, control, and communications (C3) systm must be responsive enough to position satellites in the correct orbits to support the theater commander.  This requires:  C3 systems to control satellites over the horizon from the ground control station; automatic, redundant switching to ensure that a particular satellite receives the correct commands; and flexible, secure, and mobile ground stations..."

"Third, satellite design is critical.  Improved design  lowers cost, increases flexibility, and enhances survivability.  Key design considerations include satellite size, longevity, power and propulsion requirements, radiation-hardened electronics, satellite autonomy, and satellite disposal..."

"Finally, space assets must be survivable in a hostile space environment and immediately replaceable if destroyed.  Satellite security employs both passive and active defenses to counter manmade and environmental threats such as space debris, antisatellite (ASAT) systems, or meteorites...."

"The Spacenet 2025 system synergistically builds capabilities so the whole Spacenet 2025 system is greater than the sum of its parts." 36

In our interpretaton, gleaned from a number of sources, specific USV missions can include:
Clearly, one could expand the possible missions for USVs with only a little imagination, however we will focus in those areas listed above because of their obvious potential to military tasking in the 2001 USAF space mission statement which laid out the four major space mission: force enhancement, space support, force application, and space control. 23


USAF Space Command Doctrine:  Space Missions

A slightly more detailed view of the space mission for the Air Force comes from the Space Command's November 2003 Strategic Master Plan 27:



While we touch on intelligence missions in space in our development chart below, we leave coverage of that mission area to another briefing.  The reason for that is that since1986, MILNET's staff has not been able to penetrate the shield of secrecy that surrounds the ISR community to any degree.  Several non-fiction works have surmised or leaked details of ISR space assets, and that data remains difficult to verify.  The U.S. Military Satellite briefing already exists on MILNET, and the reader should visit that page for the information we have available.


Unmanned Platforms for the Future

The first real unmanned space vehicle for the 21st century is on a path to implementation in this decade.  The X-43 Hypersonic test bed (Hyper-X) is a miniature model of a vehicle that will aide scientists in developing that strange necessity for single stage to orbit systems, a propulsion system that breaths air as well as operates in the vacuum of space.

We should also note that Micro-satellite programs are very close to if not right on mark for USV status.  These are typically built for highly specific on-orbit tasks and could easily be adapted to the Counterspace/On-Orbit strike role.

Another technology is the U.S. Missile Defense Office's kinetic kill vehicle which is part of the National Ballistic Missile Defense program.  This will eventually become a semi-autonomous anti-ballistic missile interceptor.  The vehicle could be launched into the vicinity of the incoming ballistic missile while it is in space, maneuver close to the target,  and then deliver a kinetic energy shock to destroy the target.  This could be a penetrator that used high velocity and high mass to deliver a shocking strike to the body of the target that will destroy critical components of the incoming threat.  Or, another possibility is the delivery of a net or field of high velocity objects that act like a localized meteor storm and tear the target to pieces.  In the past, the debris alternative has been rejected -- those responsible for on-orbit assets are already dismayed at the amount of space debris in Earth orbit, adding more would seem stupid.

The kill vehicle technology, similar to  Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles operating in the atmosphere, could be controlled for a time from the ground, guided to its target area, and then released to use its own onboard sensors to make last minute, literally last second corrections prior to the terminal phase of its attack.

The current BMD system will use radars to identify the threats, ground control for interception, and on-board semi-autonomous systems to conduct the terminal portion of the attack.

Unlike the Hypersonic Cruise Missile also called SHMAC in the Vision 2025 S3 white paper, the BMD attack vehicle is more like an anti-missile-missile, taking on its target in space just after the conclusion of the boost phase.  This is called the Mid-Course phase, and is typically when ground based vehicles make their mid-course corrections prior to reentry for attack

SHMAC, on the other hand is an attack vehicle, envisioned in 1996 as a HCV that is launched from a manned space vehicle.  Other papers from that time propose the TAV -- TransAtmospheic Vehicle which can carry missiles and/or troops into an enagement area on the other side of the globe from the U.S., using space as the major transport route.  Clearly a TAV could also carry USVs and operate as an on-orbit combattant.


Micro Satellites

There are other concepts being looked at for space borne attack and surveillance platforms that are more akin to the UAV/UCAV concepts in atmospheric craft. 

XSS-10

For instance there is the XSS-10, an on-orbit inspection platform, reported to be under development by the USAF Research Laboratory.  The XSS-10 is a micro-satellite and functions as an on-orbit inspector vehicle, probably (speculation) under ground control.  The idea is to provide the Air Force with a vehicle that can be used to assess remotely, the condition of an on-orbit device.  Commerical contractor is Boeing. 38

XSS-11

 The XSS-11 is another micro-satellite designed to provide a rudimentary space ferry capability.  The capability is actually quite crucial, allowing the Air Force to recover from poor orbit insertions or (speculation) loss of reaction fuel used to modify a satellite's orbit (for those satellites with that capability) or perhaps to save a satellite without the capability to correct a degrading  orbit.  In the past, orbit degradation was a leading cause for the limited lifetime of a satellite.  Since the shuttle went into operation, it is thought that the shuttle bay was used to recapture, tune up and replace such satellites, all performed on oribt.  The huge cost of a shuttle mission however, meant the Air Force had to be highly selective of which satellites were to even be bothered with.  With the XSS-10 and XSS-11 (or perhaps a single micro-satellite combing both technologies), routine on-orbit maintenanace could virtually save any satellite from de-orbit.

In both cases, these craft could easily be modified into attack craft.  Ground control is not unlike UAVs, so one would presume that this vehicles could be classed as USVs at some point.  Adding autonomy would certainly move them into that classification -- certainly there might be some tasks they could be set to perform regularly and without human intervention at a remote control console.  Commerical contractor is Lockheed-Martin. 37


Basic USV Challenges

The USV program challenges range from simple to complex.  This section will detail those challenges by exploring the general parameters around the basic USV vehicle.


Launch

There are two basic launch solution sets for USV type weapons programs, a  Real-Time Earth-to-Orbit (RT E2O) delivery, and Store On Orbit - SOO.   Both these can be used for controlling battlespace on-orbit as well as deorbiting and attacking air, sea, or ground targets. 

Real-Time, Earth To Orbit - RTE2O

RTE2O might be built on a single stage to orbit vehicle that is launched when it is tactically opportune -- that is,  when the threat presents itself, the mission is mounted.  Much like a Cold War ballistic missile system, the E2O vehicle boosts the USV into orbit, however, this kind of program would endeavor to recover the launch vehicle intact, and ideally under full control rather than a parachuted booster or fuel tank scenario. An example of current work in this area is the X-33, a vertical launch and landing system that actually lands, autonomously, on its tail fins.  The X-33 was being studied as a possible rescue vehicle for manned space operations, however the system's avionics and autonomy control systems may provide a solid basis for an automated USV launch system.  The program was cancelled after it proved autonomous tail landing capability, and it is not clear if or what a follow-on would be.


SOO

The SOO solution begins as a  non-real time at first, using a mother ship to place a number of USVs into predetermined positions on orbit, perhaps in multiple vehicle packages.  When a threat presents itself, the mother ship releases one or more USVs to attack an on-orbit target or may also deliver other vehicles that are designed to reenter the atmosphere and deliver vehicles or other similar devices to attack air or ground targets in typical UCAV fashion. 

As you can see, this looks like ICBM-Interruptus.  One half of the ICBM program puts the system (s) into space, and another half can be used to deliver it to the target area (whether that be on the ground or against another on-orbit target).

We should note that battles in space are no longer only a subject for science fiction. The earth orbital area is already crowded and as other nations become more and more space capable, there will eventually come a point where targeting space assets will become a natural threat extension to all military operations.



Key Issues in the USV Program

First and foremost, to provide for RPV, semi-autonomous or fully autonomous USVs, there are some technology barriers that must be overcome. Many of these are quite recognizable to those familiar with either or both the UAV and UUV programs undertaken by the DoD.

For instance, the complex area of vehicle navigation, control, and communication must be taken care before the space borne weapon system will be an effective force multiplier.  The UAV development program is clearly much further ahead in this respect, having already fielded the prototype in combat, a Predator UAV armed with a Hellfire missiles.  Thus the UAV program has gone through the paradigm shift necessary to remove the pilot from the weapon system.  In this case by using semi-autonomous control systems to do routine and low flexibility requirement tasks,  the UAF program uses a remote pilot to conduct troublesome maneuvers as needed as well as to command launch of the deadly missile. Combined with sensors that provide not only command and control advantages but also reconnaissance capabilities, the UAV has proven that the semi-autonmous/RPV mix is not only useful but deadly.  A number of hostiles in Afghanistan and Iraq have lost their lives to armed Predators.

The Navy's UUV program is early in the process of finding the right mixes of autonomy, and quite similar to a future space program, also is dealing with power and control problems in an unforgiving environment. Reports indicated that the UUV program has also had its first uses in combat in the Persian Gulf during the early days of the Invasion of Iraq, specifically being used to look for mines in the dangerous Gulf waters near Iraq.

In theory, underwater and space, while being severely different in many ways, also have similar control challenges.  Underwater systems require unique communications problems as well as huge power supply challenges.  In space, power is resolved with a similar solution - high capacity batteries. However the high ground has the advantage of a built in refueling station, the star our planet rotates around.  However, usually downplanet operations and certainly many Low Earth Orbit operations require spacecraft to move out of the sun's exposure into earth created shadows.  This means the space vehicle must operate independent of solar arrays and other devices used in traditional space platforms.  Suddenly the space vehicle challenges become quite similar to its underwater cousin, needing longer lasting and higher capacity batteries.

Another striking similarity between is communications.  Typically, on-orbit military vehicles can take advantage of an existing and constantly expanding network of relay and earth-space communications systems that have been in operation for several decades.  The Tracking and Data Relay System - TDRS is a system used by the military and NASA to flash on-orbit telemetry as well as shuttle or International Space Station communications around the globe to the required downplanet COMs networks.  It is thus not hard to project upgrades to this system in the future that will remove the C3 issues from USV operations.  However, like their underwater cousins, USVs may need to include a communications and navigation element.  The Navy's concept is a UUV for underwater operation that can be sent out in waves to setup an underwater network for navigation and communications. 

Should the USV operate in an aggressor threatened space environment, it may very well be necessary for an analogous USV element be placed into operation. For example, relying upon national level assets for communications and navigation might be a mission killer if your aggressor temporarily interrupts such assets.  To mitigate that risk, using the Navy's idea of deploying local nodes for coms and nav would seem to be the prudent, no fail military answer.

And just like the underwater environment, some sort of workhorse is needed to transport the smaller, task specific craft to their target area.  In the underwater environment, the submarine moves a large UUV (based on the Autonomous Submerged Vehicle -- ASV found in commercial operations) relatively close to the target area. 

TDRS
Tracking and Data Relay System

The TDRS constellation currently includes four on-orbit satellites positioned over the Equator. Two are stationed 130 degrees apart. TDRS-5 functions as TDRS-West at 174 degrees west longitude, while TDRS-4 at 41 degrees west longitude is known as TDRS-East. Both are fully functional.

The remaining two spacecraft, TDRS-1 and TDRS-3, are on- orbit backups. TDRS-1, at 171 degrees west longitude, has exceeded its design life of seven years and provides limited services. TDRS-3, at 62 degrees west longitude, also has limited capability.

Then this large UUV moves covertly  into an area closer to the target, and then  launches smaller task specific UUVs.  Several might be the COMS/NAV UUVs, others might be anti-mine UUVs that identify, assess, and upon command, destroy mines in the area.   Also on the Navy's wish list are a combination of remotely piloted, semi-autonomous as well as fully autonomous UUVs that will acquire, track, and upon command, attack the enemy's submerged or surface objects (anti-mine, anti-detector, or anti-ship). 

The space equivalent would be no different.  The S3 concept from the 1996 Air University paper clearly is focused on manned systems and attacks primarily on aerial, ground or naval targets.  However, it also discusses the workhorse concept -- a single stage to orbit transport vehicle that will take the TAV or other space vehicles into the vicinity of the target.  Then smaller and more expendable craft can be used to form the attack.  Combining the theoretical models of the S3 concept with the ideas developed for UUVs, creates a less costly, smaller and more expendable space borne system.  Such a system could also be adapted with few changes, to a fully space based, ready-on-orbit system that costs little to nothing to maintain in space.

Imagine a stealthy storage platform in key positions on-orbit.  The unit holds large USVs that themselves hold smaller task specific USVs.  When a threat is detected, the larger USVs are deployed to a specific area in space, their movement fully automated.  Upon arrival to that point, the large USVs deploy smaller ISR - Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconaissance craft, to build a local sensor net.  Also, communications and network nodes could be deployed so that at some future critical point in the mission, loss of national COMs and NAV capability will not harm the mission. Finally, as the target is acquired, the larger USV deploys smaller track and attack USVs.

The concept is compelling. While MILNET has no doubt that manned systems have great advantages, just like a manned fighter is far more capable today than any projected UCAV, the UCAV will revolutionize the Airborne operations arena.  Likewise, shifting the manned only paradigm in surveilling, controlling and attacking in space, will have similar revolutionary effects.

And just like the UUV and UAV programs, more capable systems will require increasing levels of autonomy. Autonomy means computer driven reasoning powers and thus faster and more capable computers.  Typically that equates to a large power drain on the systems, and thus the power requirements for on-orbit devices become critical.  In scenarios where unfurling a solar panel is not an option, the USV will have to dependent upon local power.  Once again, the USV challenge is similar to that of the UUV.


Summary of Space Borne/Space Based USV Issues

The following chart lists summarizes the issues for USVs:

USV Issue
 Details
 Related Research/Other Program Solutions
Low Cost Earth to Orbit Transportation
 USVs primary theater of operations are not national, at least not for the long distance portion of their operation. Space is their AOR, but getting there is the most costly part of the program.  Chemical rockets are a well known delivery vehicle, however, their operation is by no means low cost. Ground support and launch facilities are  huge sinkholes for funding and thus a replacement must be found.  Chemical rockets, while well understood, are certainly not foolproof and the hypergolic fuels are extremely dangerous to everyone concerned -- from ground storage crews, support crews, recovery crews, and to the spacecraft itself.
 There are several existing NASA programs that may eventually lead to the Earth to Orbit portion of the USV program.   NASA and the DoD are already partnered in several programs such as the X-33.  Other concepts such as the so called "spaceplane" have been canceled due to high costs in development.  The X-43 Hyper X testbed program continues, it's job to prove Mach 10 Scramjet hybrid propulsion systems that move from air breathing to something akin to high performance chemical rocket motor operation using fuel less exotic that traditional hypergolic fuels, thus making the storage and refueling scenarios much safer.  In November of 2004, its scramjet propelled the miniature test vehicle to speeds in the Mach 10 range at approximately 110,000 feet.
Independent power systems
 Space borne systems used to attack targets in space, near earth orbits or downplanet, require power for complex and highly compute intensive systems.  These systems will undoubtedly need to operate for long times out of direct sunlight thus traditional solar array based recharging and seemingly unlimited power will not be available.  On-Orbit stealth requirements may preclude the use of traditional satellite solar cell arrays which advertise the presence of a spacecraft from a very long distance...there are, as of yet, no stealthy solar arrays.
 The Navy's UUV programs face similar challenges.  One solution is to use a "workhorse" (an experimental vehicle in this regard is actually called the Seahorse AUV) a large UUV that transports thorough semi- or fully autonomous means smaller task specific UUVs to the target location).  Also the Navy is pushing hard on battery life technologies.  A possibility for reduction of radar and visual  cross sectional signatures may be the use of a periodic docking of autonomous modules to take on reaction fuel or recharging batteries. 
Computing Facilities for Fully Autonomous Operation
 Autonomy in a force multiplier USV is a critical component of the program, and requires high performance, highly optimized and extremely complex software and hardware. 
Both NASA and DoD have much expertise in this area, yet there is a great distance to go yet.  It is possible that some synergy between UAV and UUV programs might lessen the challenge ahead.
Hostile/Performance Limited Communications Environments
 Space borne/based systems traditionally can make use of a broad spectrum of on-orbit assets for communications -- for instance the TDRS system is already well used in this regard.  However, in combat scenarios, these same systems are high value targets and thus the USV cannot depend on their existence. Thus an independent, flexible and "locally" deployable COMs system is required
 Again, the Navy's UUV program has encountered this issue in their development process.  Their solution, again using the workhorse concept, is to use a large UUV to place a number of communications nodes in place in the local engagement area.  These smaller UUVs provide the basis for COMs regardless of the status of 20th century or early 21st century orbited systems.
Navigation for USVs must be extremely accurate and reliable
 Reliability and accuracy are nearly synonymous with the on-orbit GPS constellations. However, in a future combat scenario, it is not hard to imaging an aggressor will focus on taking out GPS constellations serving their combat area, especially if it is thought that U.S. forces are highly dependent on those systems.  USVs must, then, also have independent, locally deployable navigation systems.  A fully 3D navigated battlespace is necessary for future USV deployment.

Also, navigating in space is necessarily Keplerian in nature and must use orbital mechanics as a basis for its maneuvers, to do otherwise is far too costly in terms of fuel costs.  Simple orbital changes are therefore difficult and complex to program.
 Once again, at least conceptually, the Navy has come up with an answer to their similar underwater challenge -- and once again using the workhouse transporter concept. The larger UUV moves navigation nodes into the engagement area, and the smaller NAV nodes are set free to setup a NAV network.  Interestingly, the underwater devices link through tethered antenna arrays to satellite COM systems and GPS to improve their accuracy. Independent underwater operations are quite similar in terms of command and control software, to space borne/space based requirements.  A 3D battlespace underwater appears much like a 3D battlespace on-orbit or transitioning from on-orbit to downplanet operations.

One area that is definitely quiet different between UUVs and USVs is maneuvering in space.  However, both are 3D in nature and they may some synergies between them.  The same might be said, albeit less similar, for USV and UAV "flight" characteristics.
Propulsion in Space -On Orbit
 The USV program will need low cost, low consumption power systems for on-orbit operation.  Chemical motors are possibly acceptable (while very expensive to fuel and operate) and possibly acceptable for terminal navigation.  However, when solar power is available, it may be more economical and efficient to use EM augmented systems such as Ion thrusters, and resort to battery powered Ion drive operation, thus saving on power consumption whenever possible.
 NASA already uses Ion thrusters in an actual mission and has plans for expansion of the Ion drive system in future missions.  This technology might be easily adaptable to the USV program.

Again, maneuvering in space is problematic and directly effected by the on-orbit propulsion system, requiring vast amounts of energy to make simple orbital changes.
Weapons in Space Environments
 USVs may take advantage of may concept and already in development weapons systems suitable for deployment in space.  Examples of high energy lasers and kinetic energy weapons.  However,  the power requirements for a highly flexible, highly maneuverable space combat system  do not leave much room for powering energy based weapons.  Kinetic Energy weapons  using rail gun or other EM acceleration  use lots of power, just as coherent systems - high energy lasers that deliver damage - use copious amounts of power. The deployment of chemical rocket propelled kinetic energy weapon is perhaps more realistic but adds risk to support teams in order to get those devices loaded and on-orbit.  Once the packages are on-orbit, however, only on-orbit maintenance concerns exist.
 The Vision 2025 White Papers in 1996 point out various space based or space borne weapons systems that cover a broad spectrum of weapons systems that include Kinetic Energy Weapons, more esoteric systems such as HEL -- High Energy Laser, Microwave EMP type systems, reflected or focused solar light systems, or even fission/fusion device powered burst systems  Most of these are barely implement able in the 2025 timeframe and in some (such as solar light based systems) the size and build of the systems make them both very costly and highly vulnerable.  The most likely weapons to be mounted in  a space based/space borne USV might be Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) or Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). There is a also a smaller likelihood bordering on possible, in the use of EMP type devices.  See the MILNET Brief, Weapons in 2025.
Politics of Space Weapons
 There have been numerous attempts to limit the use of space for the military in the decades since the 1960s when secret use of NASA vehicles for surveillance provided the U.S. with the first satellite borne surveillance systems.  Crude as they were, it was difficult for anyone to attack these craft, and cold do little beyond complaining...especially when they could rarely even detect later more covert surveillance platforms.  In the future however, as military operations in space move beyond passive surveillance, weapons in space is quite likely to draw political heat, especially from those incapable of matching our countering those operations.

It is clear that the DoD and the Air Force have made the determination that other than the ABM treaty, there are no other legal or treaty obligations that would prevent the placement or use of conventional weapons in space.  The USAF Space Command Master Plan also clearly shows follow on nuclear deterrent plans and there is/was and RFI let for a Land Based Deterrent System (LBDS) which is shown in a timeline to replace the current Minuteman III silo systems. 27
 Numerous DoD proclamations and Congressional testimony have made it clear the DoD has been given the green light to go all out in deploying systems in space. Tactical systems will receive much attention, while strategic systems might exist as part of support programs for the tactical systems. It should be noted that many of the ballistic warning systems on orbit (such as the Nuclear Detonation/Missile Launch Flare detection systems) have already been transitioned to the additional missions of non-nuclear ICBM watch programs (for instance SCUD launch warning and tracking from Gulf War I).  It will be difficult for opponents of weapons in space to detect differences in missions between tactical and strategic.  Moreover, in a post 9/11 world, it is difficult to imagine any nation restricting the U.S. from deploying whatever it needs in space to secure homeland security or force protection, both of which can be missions of vehicles and systems that also could be used for tactical or strategic operations.



Development


As stated earlier, it is hard to find information on USV programs, either due to classification or simply because technology is not there yet.   Another possibility might be the worlds Air Forces and their research wings focusing on manned flight regimes, as we mentioned the piloted vehicles remains the Air Force focus, even their officers are asked to look ahead to the year 2025.

For instance, in the overview of the Vision 2025 Final Report, come the vision's topic areas:

TOP SYSTEMS

- Global Information Management System
- Sanctuary Base
- Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System
- Global Area Strike System
- Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle
- Space High Energy Laser
- Solar High Energy Laser
- Reconnaissance Unmanned Air Vehicle
- Attack Microbots
- Piloted Single Stage Space Plane

 HIGH LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES

- Data Fusion
- Power Systems
- Micromechanical Devices
- Advanced Materials
- High Energy Propellants
- High Performance Computing
No USV is listed, the closest that comes to a USV is the Global Area Strike System which, as we've already mentioned envisions the only unmanned vehicle being not much more than a hyper velocity cruise missile. However, the 1996 study did cover the combat UUV program quite extensively, thus not surprising, the Department of Defense has made great strides forward in that area.


Earth To Orbit Systems

The E2O systems consist of two major types, the early use of Expendable Launch Vehicles (typically chemical rockets) and Reuseable Launch Vehicles as they come online.


ELV

In the ELV arena, the USAF continues to use the Delta and Titan launch vehicles, with the later being used for medium to large sized satellite systems.  The TitanIII 44-D remains the heavy lift workhorse with the Titan IV expected to take over most of the heavy lift requirements as time goes on.  The European Ariane rocket system is medium lift, however, like the U.S. Delta IV system, strap on boosters can increase the lift capability dramatically. The Ariane IV and V have successfully launched larger payloads.  The Russian still have heavy lift capability in their Proton system, as well as several small lift systems designed to insert packages into Low Earth Orbit (LEO).  In fact, due to a second major Shuttle mishap when the Columbia Shuttle system broke apart on reentry, the Russian capability became crucial in keeping personnel moving to and from the International Space Station.  Today, only the U.S. and Russian maintain a regular capability for operating humans in space.


U.S./DoD ELVs

 
  The Russian ELV Fleet




RLV

Reuseable Launch Vehicles are key to lowering the costs of manned space flight, and it is hoped that smaller and less costly versions can be adapted for use in USV programs. Today the Shuttle Transport System (STS) also known as the Space Shuttle, is the premier RLV.  However, the Shuttle is nearing the end of its useful life and NASA is already looking at programs to replace it.

Several NASA testbed programs were mentioned earlier in this text, the X-33 and X-43 programs. 


X-33

The X-33 is a vertical launch and landing system, that proposes to be a high availability single stage to orbit system that may be useable in a fully autonomous manner, launching a cargo to a predetermined orbit, and then return to terra firma. Conceptually, at a later point in a USV profile, the same or another X-33 vehicle could be launched in order to rendezvous with an on-orbit package, link up and then return that package, all without any human intervention.  While clearly not there yet, the technology is quite promising.  The X-33 is but one of several ideas being explored for the RLV -- Reusable Launch Vehicle replacement for the Shuttle Transportation System -- STS.  The program has been cancelled however, and no follow on is expected.


X-43  Hyper X

The X-43 is the Hyper-X program, a hypervelocity propulsion and aerodynamic test bed system. It is a miniature vehicle (as compared to say the Shuttle), and currently is lofted under the wing of a NASA B-52 mothership, mated on the front of a Pegasus booster rocket.  The booster accelerates away from the B-52, placing the X-43 in its high speed minimum flight regime, at which time the X-43s scramjet engine, which has no moving parts, fires up and drives the small ship to speeds near Mach 10 (7000 MPH) at an altitude in the 110,000 foot region.  In November of 2004, the X-43 achieved its first speed milestone, setting a new aerospace speed record.  It also has proven the scramjet principles, a major milestone in future aerospace vehicle propulsion. It should also be noted that the aerodynamics of this vehicle were such that it could survive the blistering heat of Mach 10 travel at 100,000 feet, the SR-71 being the only other craft to combine high altitude with high mach numbers (Mach 3 at 100,000 feet or above).

An interesting concept is to continue to produce copies of the X-43 miniature craft and adapt it to become the small USV package, taking advantage of its high speed design and materials as a basis for a USV. This is speculation however, and there is no indication anyone in government is actually pursuing that idea.


Status of RLV Developments

Currently, the only RLV like project in the public domain, isn't.  That is, NASA transfered the only remaining RLV program, the X-37 to DARPA in the Fall of 2004.  The expected classified curtain has dropped on the program.  SPACE.COM reports that Boeing states that the vehicle is now being managed by Boeings Space and Intelligence Division. 34  Which is a step up in spookiness- the original management team was from Boeing's Phantom Works, the equivalent of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works that built the U-2 and SR-71.  Both company's secret build facilitates are thought to be in southern California.

The only other program that has continued is the Mach 10 (Mach 9.89 achieved) test of the X-43 Scramjet engine demonstrator.  However, this program has met it's major milestone and it is not clear what the follow-on will be if there will be any follow-on.

All the remaining RLV programs including other demonstrator projects have ben cancelled.  This includes the X-33 Venture Star Spaceplane, X-34 Vertical takeoff and landing RLV,  the X-40 atmospheric demonstrator for the X-33, and the X-38 on-orbit rescue craft. 

While NASA still maintains the Advanced Space Transportation Program, 29 nearly all of its RLV links have disappeared.  This could also be a result of a non-too gentle move into the classified arena, or simply due to NASA's refocus on distance exploration, i.e. Mars and beyond.  It would be logical that if the latter is the case, then NASA might be tasked with long distance exploration, and the Air Force (with DARPA?) being tasked with the  near earth region.

The facts are dismal, at least in the public view.  There is currently no follow on program for the Space Shuttle.  Thus all future military space missions (once Shuttle operations cease), will have to be conducted using Expendable Launch Vehicles.  Also, there is no other manned vehicle useable in the U.S. inventory. This has a long term future impact on all manned and unmanned systems in space.  However, most unmanned systems (ISR satellites) have been using Espendable Launch Vehicles almost exclusively since the Challenger explosion and of course had to once again rely fully on ELVs after the Columbia accident.



On Orbit Systems

Many on orbit systems already exist.  For instance their are several workhorses already available in the Air Force/NASA inventory. 

Bus Systems

An example of an on-orbit bus system is NASA's PAM--D.  This systems is used as a satellite upper stage delivery system.  Also, there is currently a European program that will serve as an on-orbit transport and delivery system, the Autonomous Transport Vehicle -- ATV.  Both these systems are designed to ride aloft on a multi-stage rocket and are quite large, intended to mate up to and support large communications or spy satellites.

Other examples include older Delta and Titan mated upper stage expendable launch system elements intended to drive large and massive satellites out into synchronous orbit.

Satellites
Clearly, the USAF has orbited a large number of autonomous satellite systems, ranging from communications satellites to electromagnetic and visible spectrum reconnaissance satellites.  These include the NUDET, nuclear detection sensors and various photographic or electromagnetic imaging systems. Also, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and the CIA have worked closely together for decades putting aloft various forms of military or intelligence gathering satellites.  Unquestionably, the European Space Program, the Russians, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese space programs also have varying levels of on-orbit capability.


Imaging

Commercial imaging satellites and on-orbit analysis and mapping systems have also removed the high ground overhead viewpoint from its once exclusively military arena.  The French SPOT program is perhaps the most well known, however there several others.


COMS
Communications satellite programs such as Iridium, while perhaps not wonders in financial circles, have proven that regular commercial launch and low earth orbit operations are no longer just the purview of military operations.


Micro-Satellites

Another, more interesting satellite technology area that is of interest are micro-satellite projects.  For instance there is one quite near the on-orbit space control and on-orbit strike capability is the XSS-11 project that was being researched at the USAF Research Laboratory in 2001.  The XSS-11 is intended to serve as a space ferry.  The micro-satellite would be launched into space within 24 hours notice, and rendezvous with an ailing satellite needing a boost into a higher orbit.  Presumably (speculation) the system will use a standard mating device to connect to the satellite, and then the XSS-11 will use its rocket motors (or ion engines?) to adjust the other satellites orbit.  This is extremely important since poor orbit insertion can mean a very expensive satellite's function is lost because it is in the wrong orbit, yet might otherwise be in excellent condition.  Also, one could imagine that orbit degradation might endanger a satellite especially one whose utility remains, but it no longer has reaction fuel to adjust its own orbit (speculation), or the capability is either lost or it never had it in the first place.

The XSS-11's sister micro-satellite is the XSS-10 which is intended to inspect on-orbit satellites when ground controllers cannot discern the problem from the ground.  Presumably (speculation) it has servo manipulators and cameras so that ground controllers can open panels and look inside, perhaps even use probes to attach to wiring harnesses or even touch instrument leads to test points on circuit cards. 

Both these micro-satellites are boosted into orbit using the Pegasus or Taurus booster rockets, and are to be operationally available within 24 hours of the need. 

There are also a number of proposed vehicles described in the 2001 document, USAF Transformation Flight Plan, from the Future Concepts and Transformation Division at Air Force Headquarters.  These include counterspace vehicles, both in the Defensive and Offensive counterspace arenas.


Summary Chart of Developments

The following chart is well populated.  This is not because there are lots and lots of USV programs in process.  The chart contains space systems that will span early development and launch efforts, thus necessarily contains information on traditional launch vehicles (Expendable Launch Vehicles -- ELVs) as well as Reuseable Launch Vehicles -- RLVs, as well as lists various existing and concept on-orbit systems.  These include boosters and transport systems that takeover deployment once a package has been boosted into initial orbit parameters; as well as actual space resident vehicles.

The area of most interest to this briefing is titled On-Orbit Vehicles.

USV Development Table
Capability
 		Description
Earth To Orbit Systems
System Type
 System
 Operator
 Description
ELV
 U.S. ELV
Atlas V US-USAF Evolved ELV for heavy lift
Athena I US - Lockheed Martin Small satellite lift Low Earth Orbit
Athena II US - Lockheed Martin
 Big satellite lift into LEO
Delta I, II US - NASA/USAF Small to Medium Satellites lift
Delta IV
 US - USAF
 Medium to Heavy Satellite lift (Evolved ELV)
Pegasus XL
 US - Orbital Sciences Small Satellite into LEO
Taurus I
 US - Orbital Sciences
 Small satellite lift
Titan II
 US - USAF
 Medium satellite lift
Titan III 44-D
 US - USAF
 Heavy to Very Heavy lift
Titan IV
 US - USAF
 Very Heavy lift (EELV)
Non - US
Ariane II
 ESA/France - Arianespace  Small to Medium lift
Ariane IV
 ESA/France
 Medium Lift
Ariane V
 ESA/France
 Heavy lift
ROCKOT Russia
 Small lift satellite

START, START I
 Russia
 Small lift satellite

Proton (SL-9)
 Russia
 Medium to Heavy lift (Solyut, Kosmos) (44,000 lbs lift)
NOTE:  This is 1980s technology and may be under limited production.
Risha
 Russia
 Medium Lift
R-56
 Russia
 Super Heavy Lift
Soyuz (SS-6)
 Russia
 Medium to Heavy Lift (Manned)
Note:  This is 1960s technology and may be under limited production.
Zenit-2
 Russia
 Medium Lift to GEO (22..6K lbs), can be launched from Russian Sea Launch platform.
Zenit-3
 Russia
 Heavy Lift to GEO, can be launched from Russian Sea Launch platform.
Zond (SL-12)
 Russia
 Heavy Lift (Kosmos, Molniya)
Note:  This is 1960s-1970s technology and may be under limited production.
LKE Russia/U.S.
 Lockheed Khrunichev Energiya - Very Heavy List, joint venture between U.S.  Lockheed Corp and Russian Khrunichev aerospace companies
Long March
 China
 Small to Medium Lift (Commercial version of nuclear ICBM)
HII
 Japan
 Small lift (i.e LEO experiments)
GSLV
 India
 Geo-Synchronous orbit Launch Vehicle - heavy lift, may be able to  lift manned spacecraft by 2007.
PSLV India Small to Medium lift (i.e COM satellite)
SLV
 India
 Satellite Launch Vehicle - Small lift
Shavit Israel Very Small lift
RLV
 STS
 US - NASA
 Shuttle Transport System - Includes the Space Shuttle also known as the Orbiter, the Titan Rocket with two strap on solid rocket boosters, and the External Fuel Tank.  This is a vertical launch vehicle which boosts the orbiter into orbit, leaving behind first the strap on boosters and then later the external tank, all of which return to earth falling into the ocean waters off the launch area.  The Shuttle System is nearing the end of its useful life, and currently there is no replacement for NASA, and thus the military will have to continue to depend upon ELVs to launch their vehicles.
SOP
 US-USAF
 Space Operations Vehicle - Concept replacement for the USAF use of NASA's shuttle system, provides similar manned spacecraft utility providing "an on-demand spacelift capability with rapid turn-around, multiple standardized payloads, space vehicle maintenance, ISR, offensive and defensive counterspace, and space surveillance capabilities. The Space Operations Vehicle would also be one of the vehicles that would deploy the Common Aero Vehicle." 26 It is not clear there is funding.
ALS
 US-USAF
 Air Launch System -  "Would be a dedicated, all azimuth, weather avoiding, on demand (within 48 hours) system capable of launching a Space Maneuver Vehicle, Common Aero Vehicle or a Conventional Payload Module." 26  (See these three transported vehicles in the On-Orbit section below)  It is not clear there is funding.
X-33 US - NASA Venture Star -Horizontall launch, single stage to orbit system, makes use of aerospike enginel. 
Cancelled March 2001
X-34 US-NASA
 Vertical launch and landing (on tail X shpaed verticial/horizontal tail surfaces.  Landing via autonomous hands off programming.
Cancelled March 2001
X-37
 US-DARPA
 Orbit and reentry vehicle transfered from NASA to DARPA and Boeings managemet office is now the super spooky Space and Intelligence Division.
Most likely in black budget now
X-38
 US-NASA
 Emergency Space Station rescue module designed to be placed on orbit near the space station, ready for immiedate emergency descents, could also be used by Shuttle crew.
Cancelled April 2002
X-41
 US-USAF The classified X-41 is "an experimental manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle carrying a variety of payloads through a suborbital trajectory, then re-entering and dispersing the payload in the atmosphere", says the US Air Force. Status is not known.
The X-41 is a technology demonstrator for the USAF's proposed Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), a conventionally armed manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle that could be deployed by a ballistic missile, aircraft or spaceplane. Potential payloads include a 450kg (990lb) penetrator warhead, four small-diameter bombs or six mini-missiles." 35
 [Could this be TAV? - MILNET]
X-42
 US-USAF
 Also classified, the X-42 is "an experimental expendable liquid rocket motor upper stage designed to boost 2,000-4,000lb payloads into orbit", says the US Air Force. The status of this programme to demonstrate technology for launch vehicle "pop-up" upper stages is not known." 35  

X-43
 US- NASA
 Hyper-X:  Hyper velocity (Mach 10 and above) testbed, broke the high speed record at altitude in November of 2004. Questions on whether there is follow on, or perhaps the next steps will be in black budget.

On Orbit
Systems
System Type
 System
 Operator
 Description
On-Orbit Vehicles
 SMV
 US-USAF
 Space Maneuver Vehicle - Concept vehicle deployed from the larger ground launched Space Operations Vehicle  - a rapidly reusable orbital vehicle deployed from the Space Operations Vehicle or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle that is capable of executing a wide range of space control missions. 26  It is not clear there is funding.
OTV
 US-USAF
 Orbital Transfer Vehicle - Would significantly increase the flexibility warfighting utility and protection of U.S. space assets while enabling on-orbit servicing of those assets. 26  It is not clear there is funding.
CSRS
 US-USAF
 Counter Surveillance and Reconnaissance System - Will provide offensive counterspace counter surveillance/reconnaissance weapon acquisition program to deny, disrupt and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems. (Near-term) 26  It is not clear there is funding.
CSCS
 US-USAF
 Counter Satellite Communications System - Will provide the capability to deny and disrupt an adversary's space-based communications and early warning. (Near-term) 26  It is not clear there is funding.
CNS
 US-USAF
 Counter Navigation System - Prevents an adversaries use of space based navigation signals. 27  It is not clear there is funding.
CAV
 US-USAF
 Common Aero Vehicle - Will be an unpowered, maneuverable, hypersonic glide vehicle deployed from a possible range of delivery vehicles such as an expendable or reusable small launch vehicle to a fully reusable Space Operations Vehicle. It will guide and dispense conventional weapons, sensors or other payloads world wide from and through space within one hour of tasking. It would be able to strike a spectrum of targets, including mobile targets, mobile time sensitive targets, strategic relocatable targets, or fixed hard and deeply buried targets. The Common Aero Vehicle's speed and maneuverability would combine to make defenses against it extremely difficult. (Mid-term) 26  It is not clear there is funding.
ALSAT
 US-USAF
 The ALSAT is a Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile: Would be a small air-launched missile capable of intercepting satellites in low earth orbit.  26,28  An earlier disclosure postulated that this was a Pegasus single stage rocket mated below a mothership aircraft and used to force a kill package into space with the intent to navigating through space to rendezvous with and destroy an enemy satellite.  The system has been tested, details are sketchy.  The system may not be robust enough to pursue maneuvering targets, rather, it is designed to engage stable orbital objects.  There have been images circulated of fighter aircraft launching a test of this program, but there is no public admission of an actual squadron or organization that has been stood up to provide this as a regular activity.  It is not clear there is funding or operational "loads" ready to go to battle.
KKV US-USAF MDO The Missile Defense Office is working on the build of a guided Kinetic Kill Vehicle.  This vehicle is intended to use hyper velocity strike speeds to impart catastrophic shock to targets in space -- initially for intercept of ballistic missiles inbound to the United States.  The system also includes several other surface launched interceptors such a extensions to the Patriot system, an airborne high energy laser attack aircraft, as well as ship launched, propositioned in theater aboard ships.  These otehrs are all intended to attack in the boost phase and are most likely not adaptable to use in on-orbit attacks. KKV is the only publicly known and funded space borne strike system for the U.S. and the only one  intended to strike in the coast phase , i.e. during  space transition.
XSS-10
 US-USAF
 Space Based Proximity Operations Satellite - Micro satellite intended to inspect and effect on-orbit repair of satellites. 22  Being developed by the USAF Research Laboratory and Boeing. Launched via Pegasus or Taurus booster.  The Space Command Strategic Master Plan includes this capability in the area called SSA - Space based surveillance systems, calling them "inspector satellites". 27 The XSS-10 was launched in January of 2003 aboard a Delta II launch vehicle (ELV). 37  It is not clear where the funding is coming from for this project
XSS-11
 US-USAF
 Space Ferry - Micro satellite intended to mate with satellites needed a boost into a higher orbit (to mitigate loss of satellites due to degradation of orbit perhaps due to incorrect insertion, loss of reaction fuel or no orbit correction capability). 22  Being developed by the USAF Research Laboratory and Lockheed Martin, will be launched via a Minotaur SLV is scheduled for 18 March 2005. 37 It is not clear where the funding is coming from for this project
Others
 US-USAF
 The MILNET Brief Weapons for 2025 describes a number of other space borne weapons systems that are being considered and range from Space to ground microwave (EMP or weather modification systems), High Energy Lasers and other Directed Energy Weapons, as well as battlefield illumination, heating or destruction using solar mirror and focusing arrays.  Obviously as technology advances, there may be opportunities for the smaller of these systems to be integrated into on-orbit USVs.
Another example of so far indeterminate programs might fall in the area of Defensive Counter Space capabilities (DSC) that would provide enhancements, upgrades and new designs to protect U.S. space assets from attack by an opponents space assets. The concept includes "off-board" defensive capabilities, that is, those not built into the on-orbit asset -- meaning some kind of technology that would defend those systems not designed to defend themselves, i.e. other vehicles or generic on-orbit weapons systems that can be used to defend satellites or other vehicles. 27
BUS
 PAM-D III
 US-NASA/USAF
 Medium to high orbit transportation under ground control with rudimentary semi-autonomous operation in very limited tasks.  Typically rides aloft on Titan III 44-D or Titan IV.  Well used, stable upper stage system.
OSP
Minotaur
 US-USAF
 Orbital Sub-Orbital Program Launch Vehicle
Launched by a Minuteman II missile, this upper stage system consists of the Pegasus booster elements Orion 50 XL and Orion 38 rocket motors and the Pegasus faring.
IUS
 US-NASA/USAF
 Initial Upper Stage, used on top of Titan III 44-D and Titan IV, for heavy lift and insertion typically into synchronous orbit slots.
ATV
 ESA -
European Space
Agency
 Automated Transfer Vehicle - Underwent final electrical test in Bremen, Germany in March of 2004, scheduled to be lofted for in space environmental tests in 2005.
ISR, COMS, and NAV
SATS
(Military)
 		CCIC2S
 US - USAF
 Combatant Commander Integrated Command and Control System 27
DSCS US - USAF Defense Satellite Communication System - Constellation of ten primary spacecraft in geostationary orbit provides voice, data, digital, and television transmissions between major military terminals and national command authority. Secure voice and high-data-rate communications, operating at superhigh frequency, primarily for high-capacity fixed users.  Air Force was working on replacements birds as the system is now aging, the first having been launched in the 1997 timeframe.
DMSP
 US - USAF
 Defense Meteorological Satellite Program - Military weather satellites operating it LEO that collect and disseminate global weather information directly to the warfighter and government agencies. Operating in a two satellite constellation, each spacecraft collects high-resolution cloud imagery (visible and infrared) from a 1,800-mile-wide area beneath it. Satellites collect other specialized data, such as atmospheric temperature and moisture, snow cover, precipitation intensity and area, and oceanographic and solar-geophysical information for DoD air, sea, land, and space operations. Five satellites remain to be launched (USAF launched its last on April 4, 1997). Joint satellites will be procured with NOAA for the follow-on system, with the first to be launched in the 2007-10 time frame. It will be called the National Polar-Orbiting Gynrational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).  It is thought that the satellites also deploy NUDET (Nuclear Detonation  Detector) systems.
DSP
 US - USAF
 Defense Support Program - Infrared detectors aboard these satellites have provided early warning of ballistic missile attack to NORAD since the 1970s. During Operation Desert Storm, operators at Space Command used DSP data to provide warnings of Scud attacks to theater commanders, though DSP was not designed to spot and track smaller missiles. Information on procurement situation, number of satellites launched, and number to be launched is classified. DoD intends to replace the system with a new spacecraft, the Spacebased Infrared System, designed to spot and track the smaller, faster-burning theater missiles that have proliferated it recent years. It will be fielded in three increments; Increment 1, Fiscal 1999; Increment 2, Fiscal 2002; and Increment 3, Fiscal 2006.
FLTSATCOM
 US - USAF/USN
 Constellation of four satellites operated by USN, USAF, and the Presidential command network. A secure link among the three, providing ultrahigh-frequency (UHF) communications. Satellites carry 23 channels for communications with naval forces, nuclear forces, and national command authorities. The last two FLTSATCOM satellites (Flights 7 and 8) carry extremely high-frequency (EHF) payloads. In operation since 1978 in geostationary orbit, with a minimum of four satellites needed for worldwide coverage.
GBS
 US-USAF/DoD
 Global Broadcast Systems - GBS is  a high-speed, one-way broadcast communications system that provides high-volume information worldwide directly to in-theater warfighters. GBS provides data to large populations of dispersed users with small, mobile receive terminals. These terminals allow data to be disseminated directly to lower-echelon forces, providing current weather, intelligence, news, imagery, and other mission essential information. GBS will be implemented in three phases. Phase 1 will consist of leased commercial transponders. Phase 2 will consist of GBS packages aboard three UFO satellites. Phase 3 will be an objective system consisting of military assets, a commercial leased system. or a combination of the two.
GPS
(NavStar)
 US - USAF/DoD
 Global Positioning System - commercially available under control of USAF - Constellation of 24 (48?) satellites used by military and civilians to determine a precise location anywhere on Earth. A small receiver takes signals from two to four GPS satellites and calculates a very precise position. The satellites transmit a highly precise signal to authorized users, permitting accurate navigation to within a few meters (16-20 for "normal" users). DoD has deployed more than 110,000 GPS receivers to US government and allied users, with terminals becoming much more widely available since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Civilians use a commercial version of the terminals, with a degraded signal with an accuracy to 100 meters. Receivers are priced as low as $200. The less accurate signal prevents adversaries from using GPS for precision weapons targeting. Civilian users are working to obtain a much better signal through auxiliary equipment known as differential GPS, that corrects the degradation. DoD has become increasingly concerned about enemy use of GPS during a conflict and has begun an effort called NAVWAR (navigation warfare) to protect its advantage while preventing adversary use of GPS. GPS III is an overarching requirements process to develop a document that encompasses civil, military, scientific, and commercial use of GPS. It is also referred to as positioning, navigation, and timing.
All birds in the 6 operational constellations are on orbit, the original 6 constellations of the demo system are in an unknown status. By mid 1999, the induced error feature was turned off giving commercial users the ability to get the higher accuracy and allowing for use in commercial aircraft navigation. Rumor has it that Block III birds will transmit a signal that allows positioning at 1-2 meters accuracy, and with differential GPS, near perfect positioning. No funding for block III is anticipated, however.
Milstar
 US - USAF/DoD

The first two Milstars of an intended constellation of four that would provide coverage between 65 north and 65 south latitude are it orbit. The first $1 billion Milstar was launched February 7, 1994, and the second November 5,1995. Originally conceived as a communications system that could survive a nuclear conflict and connect national command authorities to commanders of ships, aircraft, and missiles during a war, the system's design and application have been altered in the aftermath of the Cold War. Milstar currently serves tactical forces as well as strategic, and the last four Milstars (Milstar IIs) include medium-data-rate payloads able to transmit larger volumes of data up to 1.45 mbps. The four were scheduled for launch in 1998-2002. All satellites have low-data-rate payloads providing communications at five bps to 2.4 kbps The system can handle a data stream equal to 50,000 fax pages an hour and 1,000 simultaneous users. The satellites are designed to be jam-proof and use sophisticated techniques to provide secure communications.

Update: All birds in orbit, third generation delayed due to funding

NPOESS US-NOAA/USAF
 National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, with an undisclosed mission for the military, however, in the 1996 ADR, the missions was described as a merge of NOAA POES program and the U.S. Military DMSP program both requiring similar polar orbits.  It is not clear if NPOESS was funded or placed in orbit. 40
SBIRS
 US-USAF/DoD/CIA
 Space Based Infrared System - A replacement for the DSP Program satellites, adding additional infrared look-down capabilities, continuing to support the NUDET (Nuclear Detonation) program as well as ballistic missile launch flare detection.  
UFO
 US-USAF/DoD
 UHF Follow On program - New generation of satellites providing UHF communications to replace FLTSATCOM satellites. UFO satellites have 29 channels-compared to the FLTSATCOM's 23 ) -are bigger and have higher power. Compatible with the same terminals used by the earlier systems, UFO-4 was first in the series to include an EHF communications payload with enhanced antijam telemetry, command, broadcast, and fleet interconnectivity. EHF channels provide at additional 11 channels. Ten UF0 satellites were ordered, six are operational.

Intelligence ( Taken from Air Force Magazine, August, 1997, pg. 24. Updated, April, 2002., see the more complete listing  in the MILNET Brief, Key U.S. Military Satellites)

Aquacade
 US-USAF/NSA
 ELINT (Ferret) Communcations intercept satellites

Keyhole
 US-USAF/CIA
 Optical Imaging Reconnaissance satellitesn (PHOTOINT)

Lacrosse
 US-USAF/CIA
 Radar Imaging Reconnaissance satellites (RADINT)

White Cloud
 US-USAF/CIA
 Ocean Surveillance satellites

Others
 US
 ISR sats known to MILNET are listed in U.S. Military Satellites




Appendix A:  USAF Air University 2025 Study Papers

Note:  The table below is a copy of a table that appears on the Air University page, save javsascript buttons for abstracts or PDF files.  The link above,  will take you directly to that more useable page on the Air University site.  Make sure you enable popup windows in your browser if you wish to that pages buttons to select abstracts or PDF files.

Year Title
1996 Counterair: The Cutting Edge
1996 Space Operations: Through the Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System)
1996 Logistics in 2025: Consider It Done!
1996 Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 [ Yes, Weather Modification - MILNET]
1996 Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise
1996 An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities
1996 Virtual Integrated Planning and Execution Resource System (VIPERS): The High Ground of 2025
1996 Planetary Defense: Catastrophic Health Insurance for Planet Earth
1996 Star Tek--Exploiting the Final Frontier: Counterspace Operations in 2025
1996 Aerospace Sanctuary in 2025: Shrinking the Bul's-eye
1996 Airlift 2025: The First with the Most
1996 Spacelift 2025: The Supporting Pillar for Space Superiority
1996 2025 Aerospace Replenishment: The Insidious Force Multiplier
1996 Frontier Missions: Peacespace Dominance
1996 Close Air Support (CAS) in 2025: "Computer, Lead's In Hot"
1996 Interdiction: Shaping Things to Come
1996 A Contrarian View of Strategic Aerospace Warfare
1996 Information Operations: Wisdom Warfare for 2025
1996 Hit'em Where It Hurts: Strategic Attack in 2025 [ "Locus of Focus" and other Fine Military Zen - MILNET]
1996 Surfing the First and Second Waves in 2025: A SOF Strategy for Regional Engagement
1996 The DIM MAK Response of Special Operations Forces to the World of 2025: "Zero Tolerance/Zero Error"
1996 Strikestar 2025 [circa 2025 UCAV - MILNET]
1996 The Man in the Chair: Cornerstone of Global Battlespace Dominance
1996 Information Operations: A New War-fighting Capability
1996 2025 In-time Information Integration System (I3s)
1996 Spacenet: On-orbit Support in 2025
1996 Brilliant Force and the Expert Architecture that Supports It
1996 Joint Readiness Assessment and Planning Integrated Decision System (JRAPIDS): Combat Readiness and Joint Force Management for 2025
1996 Brilliant Warrior: Information Technology Integration in Education and Training




Appendix B:  USAF Air War College Student Papers
Year Title
2003 Strategic Attack: Defined and Refined
2003 Strategic Surprise in an Age of Information Superiority: Is It Still Possible?
2003 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Are We Right-Sized?
2003 Building the Rule of Law: U.S. Assistance Programs and Police/Military Relations in Latin America
2003 The 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy: A New Use-of-Force Doctrine?
2003 Hispanics: An Untapped Leadership Resource
2003 Opening the Aperture: Ending Service “Branding” of US Unified Commands
2003 Does the Air Force Total Force Chaplain Service’s Map Match the Current Terrain?
2003 Operational Flying Training—Are We Training for the Right Fight?
2003 Centralized Control with Decentralized Execution: Never Divide the Fleet?
2003 Global Reach Laydown from Desert Shield to Enduring Freedom: A Comparative Analysis
2003 Centralized Command – Decentralized Execution: Implications of Operating in a Network Centric Warfare Environment
2003 Bare Base Equipment and Support of the Expeditionary Air Force
2003 Given the Goldwater Nichols Act, How Can Combatant Commanders Influence the PPBS Process?
2003 Going Deep: A System Concept for Detecting Deeply Buried Facilities from Space
2003 Emerging Concepts of Mortuary Affairs Doctrine for the 21st Century War Fighter
2003 Beyond the Task Force Conops: The Path to a Capabilities-Based Modernization Framework for the Air Force
2003 Spacepower as a Coercive Force
2003 The Decision Maker’s Guide to Robust, Reliable and Inexpensive Access to Space
2003 Security Assistance Dependence - Wielding American Power
2003 India as a Responsible Nuclear Power: A Strategy for Stability
2003 Implementing Effects-Based Operations: Redefining the Role of the JTCB
2003 Military and the Media: A Comparison Between Kosovo and the War on Terrorism
2003 Unintended Consequences of A-76 and Downsizing of the Military
2003 Canada and the United States - Defense Cooperation in U.S. Northern Command?
2003 Computer Network Defense: DOD and the National Response
2003 C-17A: Operation Enduring Freedom Employment/Deployment: Lessons Observed
2003 Anatomy of Cyberterrorism: Is America Vulnerable?
2003 Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles: A Close Air Support Alternative
2003 The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor
2003 Why a PHD in Maintenance?
2003 Re-Emphasizing the Profession of Arms: Implications on the Contracting Career Field
2003 USAF Force Protection: Is It Really Everyone’s Responsibility?
2002 The 65-Mile Seam
2002 Operation Starvation
2002 Divided Loyalties: Civil-Military Relations at Risk
2002 Winning the Retention Wars: The USAF, Women Officers, and the Need for Transformation
2002 Commanding an Air Force Squadron in the 21st Century
2002 How to Institutionalize Space Superiority in the United States Air Force
2002 U.S. National Security Strategy in Response to 11 Sep 01
2002 The Dual Status of the National Guard and the Total Force
2002 Doing Things that Can't Be Done: Creating a New Defense Establishment
2002 Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) -- Is it taking Root in the Defense Acquisition Community?
2002 Water...Bulk or Bottled? It's a Bigger Issue Than That
2002 Aircrew Performance: Cutting-Edge Technology
2002 Negating the Threat of Libyan Weapons of Mass Destruction
2002 Shades of Gray: Gradual Escalation and Coercive Diplomacy
2002 From Islands to Networks: A Blueprint for a Multilateral Security Regime in the Asia-Pacific Region
2002 BYTES: Weapons of Mass Disruption [ Information Warfare and Cyberattack - MILNET]
2002 The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century
2002 Fear No Evil: Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
2001 Preventing Catastrophe: U.S. Policy Options for the Management of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia
2001 Between Iraq and a Hard Place Fighting Guerrilla Warfare in the Air
2001 Death by a Thousand Cuts: Micro-Air Vehicles (MAV) in the Service of Air Force Missions
2001 MAGTF Air Assets and the JFACC
2001 Managing Proliferation in South Asia: A Case for Assistance to Unsafe Nuclear Arsenals
2001 Market Garden: Was Intelligence Responsible for the Failure?
2001 The Command of Space: A National Vision for American Prosperity and Security
2001 Not with Impunity: Assessing U.S. Policy for Retaliating to a Chemical or Biological Attack
2001 Guiding the United States Government Response to an Overseas Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Disaster
2000 High Power Radio Frequency Weapons: A Potential Counter to U.S. Stealth and Cruise Missile
2000 Air Force Civil Engineer Mobilization in a Joint Vision 2010 World
2000 Evolution in Military Affairs: The Chaotic Development of Infrared Systems for Tactical Aviation
2000 The End of Secrecy? Military Competitiveness in the Age of Transparency
2000 The Integration of U.S. Army AH-64 (APACHE) Helicopters Into USAF Aerospace Expeditionary Force Organizations: Bridging the Conceptual Gap Between Halt Doctrine, Strategic Preclusion and JV 2010
2000 Prompt Global Strikes Through Space: What Military Value?
2000 Acquisition and Contracting Strategies to Reduce Depot Maintenance and Repair Costs-an Integrated Approach
2000 Future Combat Assessment
2000 Properly Resourcing the "Shape" Pillar of the National Military Strategy
2000