The USSF (and previously USAF) Space Command has little to do with the actual operation of space launch vehicles other than providing range support (via the 30 Space Wing at Vandenberg SFB and 45 Space Wing at Cape Canaveral AFS) and some limited ground support operations, except in the case of reuse of Minuteman and Peacekeeper motors and other government furnished equipment (GFE), in which government technicians perform motor/stage processing and certification (and in some cases transportation support). Essentially all mission design, detail vehicle design, ‘wrench-turning’, and flight operations are performed by a launch services contractor such as ULA, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, et cetera. There is little technical expertise within the uniformed ranks of the Space Force for the disciplines required to develop and launch a space launch vehicle (propulsion, structures, aerothermal, GN&C, avionics, environments, environments, et cetera) below the mission requirements development level (most of which is done by civilian government employees, and heavily supported by contractors with discipline expertise in space launch and space operations), and as a service primarily serves as a contracting and program management function.
The United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) already exists as a Unified Combatant Command under the aegis of the National Security Agency; as such, it serves as a joint command that draws from and supports the various services with cybersecurity and cryptography support, because this is an area where all branches require discipline knowledge that is outside of their particular combat domains. Making the Cyber Command a separate branch of the military makes would not be beneficial to anyone because it would then be in direct competition for defense funding rather than a recipient from each service. Nor is there a need to have ‘Cyber Warriors’ meeting the physical performance standards or performing the various independent functions of each of the uniformed military services (logistics, regulations, basing and housing, criminal prosecution and corrections, et cetera), and the independent functions that it does provide (education and training, development and publication of standards, contracting) can and are done within its existing administrative structure. Each of the uniformed services ‘stations’ a certain number of personnel to support USCYBERCOM to ensure that they are represented and getting adequate support, along with government employees and contractors directly supporting NSA or other associated government agencies.
A “Cyber Force” branch of the military would be nothing more than another bureaucracy, uniforms and rank structure, et cetera all requiring more budget on top of what is already spent for defense, which already includes cybersecurity and cyberwarfare.
Is the United States Space Force a service branch that is legitimately needed? I always had the impression that it was something that popped into Trump’s head in the middle of a speech and he therefore vomited it out of his mouth. I never felt like it was something that anyone expressed a need for; Trump just liked the idea of being the POTUS who created a fancy new service branch. But, since he said it publicly, the DoD was obligated to follow through and make it happen.
Air Force Space Command was established in 1982.
The United States Space Command was established in 1985.
In 2001, a congressional commission released a report recommending the establishment of an independent space force.
Yeah, it’s not like it came out of nowhere – just that a lot of members of Congress had before looked at it and saw it would be something that would not represent building new bases in their districts or buying new big pieces of equipment from contractors in their states, but rather just the same as were already budgeted for the Air Force and/or Space Command anyway. So they were in no real hurry.
One think that I have noticed is that the Cyber Warfare specialties have greatly expanded recently in the space of the Warrant Officer ranks (including the revival of that category for the Air Force after almost 60 years), which quite goes to the point of that mission needing people who will mostly be doing the specialized work and not bother with the whole managerial/political work that goes with senior commissioned rank.
The only issue I feel qualified to remark on is the dress uniforms. That much smacks of Trump-era phoniness pitched to the idiots. Inevitably there’ll be another Pearl Harbor/9/11, but this time at the podium we’ll get someone dressed like Captain Video.
I initially didn’t like the Army’s brown jobs; it looked like Welcome to Marwren cosplay. But I came around to the traditionalism of it. Dress uniforms should be notched-lapel tunics; brown for army, Marine green, different blues for the squids, zoomies and coasties. The Space force could be jet black cool.
Yeah, it requires a specific set of deep technical skills even just to manage cyberwarfare programs and activities, which is entirely consistent with what the warrant officer structure is intended to support.
No, not every function that supports multiple branches needs to be its own separate branch; if that were true, we would have dozens of different military branches, all with their own command structures, bureaucracies, and support functions with an enormous amount of redundancy. The only conceivable purpose of this would be make-work for the purpose of “job creation”.
And more to the point, cybersecurity and cyberwarfare is not a “force on force” mode of combat; we would not sent our “Cyber Warriors” out to don direct confrontation with an opposing power’s cyber combatants. Cybersecurity and cyberwarfare is largely looking for vulnerabilities in software and systems, responding to intrusions by forensic analysis and containment, and implementing improvements in cryptographic systems. Cyberwarfare as a mode of conflict is far more akin to sabotage and espionage than it is direct action, and the National Security Agency has been supporting cryptographic and communication security since long before people started sticking “cyber” onto the front of words like warfare and security. The entire notion of making an entirely separate branch of “Cyber” with its own support and logistics is nonsensical, especially given that it would create innate budgetary and domain conflicts that would actually impede efforts to homogenize cyberwarfare and cybersecurity efforts across the services.
This statement is so misguided I don’t even know how to respond to it other than to say that we are fighting back (even if you are not personally aware of it), and those efforts would in no way be enhanced by creating another set of uniforms and insignia, or more billets for flag officers, or separate “cyber” bases and all of the infrastructure to support them.
In practice Navy dress “Blues” have been actually black for Og knows how long but I do get the point of earth-tones for land-fighting forces and shades of blue for those in the sky and water. And as for the cut don’t forget to give a pass to the Navy white and Marine blue dress tunics with the standup collars.
No idea what makes a diagonal or cross-side buttoning more “Space” other than that we’re used to see that pattern in mass market fiction, and frankly if you just really wanted to be “futuristic” then why could you not lose the *&+^%$ necktie.
