US Military Technology

Russia, SpaceX, and Electronic Warfare: It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again​

Dave Tremper, who oversees electronic warfare from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, recently shared the Department of Defense was impressed with SpaceX’s ability to rapidly thwart a Russian electronic attack on their Starlink constellation.

He said that “from the EW [electronic warfare] technologist’s perspective, that is fantastic,” and that “how they did that was eye-watering.”

He later stated that this agility is something the US military needs. I agree with that; however, with his earlier comments, not so much.

Were SpaceX’s efforts impressive? Yes.

Was this eye-watering? No.

Was this even EW? Debatable.

Jammers in Afghanistan​

To be blunt, SpaceX’s actions have been learned and relearned by numerous EW warriors over time. Those lessons, however, never seem to generate traction beyond observation and then a distant memory.

As one of many examples: on September 1, 2001, I pinned on Major and was appointed Wing Weapons Officer to the 355th for the EC-130H Compass Call. Just days later, our nation was attacked.

As the Wing Weapons Officer, I pointed out that one of our newly installed jammers had the physical ability to counter a heavily used Taliban communications system.

However, the air force had not paid for the associated software, inhibiting the operator from employing the system’s full range. My point was noted and appeared to be dismissed.

We were soon flying combat missions over Afghanistan. I continued to raise the issue until someone with enough power heard my plea.
Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment of the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team provide security as a CH-47 Chinook helicopter lands after a key leader engagement in Southeastern Afghanistan
Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment of the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team provide security as a CH-47 Chinook helicopter lands in Afghanistan. Photo: US Army
Quickly, Air Combat Command, Air Staff, and others scrambled to respond. They sent the software engineer who designed the weapon system. Before each mission launch, he cracked open the operational flight program – normally taboo.

He rewrote the code daily, creating an opportunity for the aircrew to use the system to its full ability. I had never seen such a thing.

Through my time deployed, I truly enjoyed speaking with this man. He was nearly a doppelganger of the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia. During our talks, he’d share stories of the amazing capabilities of this jammer (and others) and how other engineer friends lamented over true EW possibilities. I ate up every word.

My ‘Starlink’ Story​

After months deployed, I returned to the US and was asked by the lead weapon system contractor to speak to their engineers. This request raised massive red flags across senior military staff, far senior to my position as a major.

Their concern? An operator speaking directly to engineers could only mean one thing: more money. To this day, some associated with the weapon system at the military commands are still angered by this.

That’s my “Starlink” story, and while it may be new to some, it likely isn’t all that different to many others across the EW world. I’ve personally heard many.

I’d also say the tactic employed by SpaceX wasn’t all that unique. They employed the “mass” Principle of War; they “flooded the zone,” a tactic used in football, basketball, chess, checkers, and many others.

In fairness, Tremper is justified in raising the issue of SpaceX and Starlink, albeit, I think for different reasons.
Russia has completely failed to jam the Starlink connection used by the Azovstal garrison.
They had stable internet access until the final hours of their presence at the plant.
Russia’s super expensive radio-electric warfare tools couldn’t do anything about it.
Just a fact.
— Illia Ponomarenko
🇺🇦
(@IAPonomarenko) May 21, 2022
Click to expand...

Distance Between Operators and Engineers​

First, the distance between operators and engineers at SpaceX is extremely short. From my experience, this is quite different in the US military.

As a young officer, I was often stifled from even commenting on capabilities engineers would discuss. It was akin to a child told to ignore all the candy in Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.

Perhaps this is different in other military communities outside of electronic warfare, I can only speak from my experience.

Resources​

Secondly, while I was happy to see Elon Musk and Starlink rapidly thwart Russian jamming, it’s worth pointing out it took a guy with (forgive my language) “FU Money” to make it happen.

More to the point, consider this hypothetical. Suppose Starlink was a military program, and the DoD asked the contractor to flood satellites over Ukraine.

I’d suggest this is how that unfolds. After a few days, a well-prepared stack of papers laying out the cost of contracting, engineering, satellite recoding, satellite movement from optimum orbits, etcetera would be placed on a high-level official’s desk in the Pentagon.

The total cost would likely exceed what the DoD would be willing to resource. Even if the DoD wanted to take such action, they probably wouldn’t have immediate access to funds to execute.

The result? The department’s answer would be, “Thanks, but we will just work through the jamming.”

Compensation, Bureaucracy, Talent​

Third, SpaceX engineers’ compensations are far better than the vast majority of their counterparts working for or in support of the DoD.

It also appears that there are far fewer engineers at SpaceX, relative to mission size and scope. Most have decision-making authority and are not blanketed under layers and layers of bureaucracy. Money, however, is only a portion of the issue.

For newly graduating engineer students, two of the top three companies identified as their “dream job” were Tesla and SpaceX. These companies get their pick of the litter and the chance to groom the cream of the crop.

While SpaceX has a vertically integrated, leaned out manpower, gave decision-making authority to the lowest levels, and created a competitive market for highly specialized skills, what has DoD EW done?

Arguably, gone the other way. Specific to the US Air Force, there are no longer Electronic Warfare Officers intensely trained on the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS); instead, there are now hybrid Combat Systems Operators who receive generalized training across various disciplines.

At the DoD, there are more people associated with EW, however, most of them are tangential and have other higher priority responsibilities. Additionally, most personnel are horizontally integrated, and few have decision authority.

My point is not to criticize the US Air Force or DoD. There are benefits and reasons for the steps they’ve taken.

However, I’m pointing out that DoD leadership likely can’t have their cake and eat it too. Specifically, they can’t expect to mimic Starlink’s EMS warriors if they aren’t willing to mimic SpaceX’s from and funding, organizational, and staffing perspective.

Hopes​

While I realize some will see this article critical of those currently in EW leadership, I’d ask they see past my harsh tone. I’m appreciative there’s an EW discussion at Tremper’s level and that it made it into media. On some levels, that’s a win.

I am also hopeful conduits between operators and engineers can be fostered, with Congressional appropriators or authorizers creating funding for good ideas beyond the bounds of those in the Pentagon and the Major Command who only see turmoil when operators and engineers meet.

And my final hope, if my “EW Jerry Garcia” is still out there, I’d love to link back up and hoist a beer. I truly miss our discussions and enjoyed every minute we had together. You know who you are, even if the world doesn’t, and your efforts made the Taliban a lonely, isolated bunch. Our nation owes you a huge debt for being a plain-clothes civilian who came forward to fight.
www.thedefensepost.com

Russia, SpaceX, and Electronic Warfare: It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

The US DoD can't mimic Starlink’s ESM warriors if they aren’t willing to mimic SpaceX's from and funding, and organizational and staffing views.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
 
www.llnl.gov

New target facility will help unlock plutonium’s secrets

Improving our understanding of the physical characteristics of plutonium as it ages is a vital aspect of maintaining the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent in the absence of underground testing. The recent installation of a new plutonium target fabrication facility at Lawrence Livermore...
www.llnl.gov www.llnl.gov
 
www.space.com

US military's mysterious X-37B space plane zooms toward orbital record

The X-37B is just a week away from setting a new mission-duration mark.
www.space.com www.space.com

US military's mysterious X-37B space plane zooms toward orbital record​

The U.S. military's X-37B robotic space plane is closing in on a mission-duration record.

The X-37B launched to Earth orbit on May 17, 2020 on the sixth mission for the program, a flight known as Orbital Test Vehicle-6 (OTV-6).
The Space Force minishuttle has now been aloft for 773 days. That's just a week shy of the X-37B record of 780 days, which was set on OTV-5. (That program record doesn't come close to the overall mark for an orbital stay; for example, the Landsat-5 satellite observed Earth from orbit for 29 years.

Onboard experiments​

While the Boeing-built robotic space plane's primary orbital agendas are classified, some of its onboard experiments were disclosed before launch.

One such experiment, from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), investigates transforming solar power into radio frequency microwave energy. The experiment is called the Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module, or PRAM for short.

We also know that OTV-6 included the deployment of FalconSat-8, a small satellite developed by the U.S. Air Force Academy and sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory to conduct several experiments on orbit.

In addition, two NASA experiments are tucked onboard the space plane to study the effects of the space environment on a materials sample plate and seeds used to grow food.

OTV-6 is the first X-37B mission to use a service module to host experiments. The service module is an attachment to the aft of the vehicle that allows additional experimental payload capability to be carried to orbit.

Earlier flights​

Here's a roster of the previous X-37B missions, each of which lasted longer than its immediate predecessor:

  • OTV-1 launched on April 22, 2010 and landed on Dec. 3, 2010, spending over 224 days on orbit.
  • OTV-2 launched on March 5, 2011 and landed on June 16, 2012, spending over 468 days on orbit.
  • OTV-3 launched on Dec. 11, 2012 and landed on Oct. 17, 2014, spending over 674 days on orbit.
  • OTV-4 launched on May 20, 2015 and landed on May 7, 2017, spending nearly 718 days on orbit.
  • OTV-5 launched on Sept. 7, 2017 and landed on Oct. 27, 2019, spending nearly 780 days on orbit.

It's unclear when and where OTV-6 will come down to Earth. OTV-1, OTV-2 and OTV-3 landed at Vandenberg Space Force Base California, while OTV-4 and OTV-5 touched down at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Overseeing operations​

The X-37B program is flown under the auspices of a U.S. Space Force unit called Delta 9, which was established in July 2020.

"Delta 9 Detachment 1 oversees operations of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, an experimental program designed to demonstrate technologies for a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the U.S. Space Force," Space Force officials wrote in a Delta 9 fact sheet .

"The mission of Delta 9 is to prepare, present, and project assigned and attached forces for the purpose of conducting protect-and-defend operations and providing national decision authorities with response options to deter and, when necessary, defeat orbital threats," the fact sheet explains. "Additionally, Delta 9 supports Space Domain Awareness by conducting space-based battlespace characterization operations and also conducts on-orbit experimentation and technology demonstrations for the U.S. Space Force."

Vehicle features​

The Space Force is thought to have two X-37B vehicles in its fleet, both of which were built by Boeing. The X-37B launches vertically atop a rocket and lands horizontally on a runway, like NASA's old space shuttle orbiter.

The military space plane looks a lot like the now-retired shuttle, in fact, but it's much smaller — just 29 feet (8.8 meters) long, compared to 122 feet (37 m). There's another key difference as well: NASA's shuttle was crewed, whereas the X-37B is robotic.

Boeing has noted that the X-37B features many elements that mark a first use in orbit for a space plane, including fully automated de-orbit and landing functions, flight controls and brakes that use all electro-mechanical actuation (no hydraulics) and a body made of a relatively light composite structure, rather than traditional aluminum.

"The X-37B is one of the world's newest and most advanced re-entry spacecraft, designed to operate in low Earth orbit, 150 to 500 miles [240 to 800 kilometers] above the Earth," Boeing wrote in a vehicle description (opens in new tab). "The vehicle is the first since the space shuttle with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis. This United States [Space] Force unmanned space vehicle explores reusable vehicle technologies that support long-term space objectives."

The X-37B was designed to fly missions that last up to 270 days, Boeing noted. But every flight except the first has zoomed well past that supposed limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom