, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Space systems are crucial to this nation’s ability to wage war. Space-based systems for navigation, weather, meteorology, missile warning, ISR, and communications have become so powerful that no operational commander would consider fighting without them. But each sector evolved separately, so management of these systems is divided among a number of DoD, intelligence, civil and commercial organizations-each with a different approach to serving warfighters. This fragmenting of organizational responsibility keeps us from stream-lining space support to our forces in the field. Full Force Integration (FFI) is USSPACECOM‘s strategy to seamlessly weave space capabilities into all dimensions of warfare. See Figure 7-1.

Full Force Integration means integrating space forces and space-derived information with their counterparts on land, sea, and air. If this integration is thorough enough, operational commanders can use space assets as intuitively as the more traditional ones.

Space forces consist of people, weapons, and systems (and their supporting infrastructure) that carry out USSPACECOM’s missions. Space infor-mation is derived from systems that USSPACECOM controls and from those under the NRO, NASA, other governmental agencies, and commercial organizations.

To fully integrate space forces and information systems with land, sea, and air forces, USCINCSPACE must encourage some parallel efforts regarding policy, doctrine, people, information, and organizations.

  • Policy must encourage further integration of commercial, civil, and allied space systems into joint warfighting. Examples are (1) defining the military’s responsibility in protecting vital commercial assets in peace, crisis and war; (2) developing mobilization plans (Civil Reserve Air Fleet [CRAF] or other similar ideas) that ensure commercial services are available when needed; (3) defining or adjusting the warfighting roles of organizations like the NRO and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and (longer term) (4) weapons in space.
  • Doctrine must ensure space operations fully integrate with other mediums of warfare. Two examples are (1) operational doctrine necessary for unit level forces to fully exploit information dominance; and (2) doctrine that tells us how to task and distribute space-based ISR in direct support of field operations. Each of these is being reevaluated and has yet to mature.
  • People. Strengthen the emphasis on space at every level of education and training. Although space support is already essential to military operations, conventional warfighters don’t always understand it.
  • Information. As a global defense information network (and the doctrine and tactics for using it) evolves, space information, operations, and forces must be part of that network at every level, so commanders can use all of them in war.
  • Organization. New organizational relationships and partnerships among the civil, military and commercial communities must develop if we are to integrate all systems into our mili-tary’s use of space. USSPACECOM’s recent partnerships with the NRO (to improve ISR support to warfighters) and NASA (to improve leading edge technologies) are significant steps in the right direction.

Figure 7-1 Elements of Full Force Integration


In 2020, we see space forces completely integrated with land, sea, and air forces. Warfighters are trained to take full advantage of space capabilities in special, joint, and combined warfare. Should threats to our national security emerge and our civilian leadership decide, weapons in space could be deployed-first for national missile defense, then toward theater missile defense, and eventually for additional missions. Tactics, techniques, and procedures mature as a result of policies and doctrine that encourage employing capabilities from all mediums throughout the entire spectrum of conflict. USCINCSPACE ensures space is operationally integrated throughout DoD and directs warfighting in and from space. Global defense information network gives warfighters easy access to information from all sources plus high-speed direct downlinks to precision weapons and platforms. We’ve pictured this end state in Figure 7-2.

Figure 7-2 The Concept of Full Force Integration


To achieve our goals, USSPACECOM addresses four key elements: policy and doctrine, people, information, and organization. As the following pages describe, we must lead or advocate changes and developments in each area.

Policy and Doctrine

National space policy provides the foundation and rationale for greater cooperation and focus in space programs (including funding and initiatives) across civil, commercial, intelligence and military organizations. We need clear strategies and policies to integrate military policy and doctrine across all mediums and throughout the full spectrum of conflict. Many implied elements of Full Force Integration link conceptually to those of Global Engagement and Control of Space. For example, to “negate” forces under Control of Space, we may need to use land, sea, and air forces to destroy a hostile satellite’s ground segment. But terrestrial forces may also need a space-based weapon to neutralize a terrestrial target. Thus critical milestones for Full Force Integration include selected policies, doctrine, and CONOPS from Global Engagement and Control of Space (see Figure 7-3).


Under the Unified Command Plan (UCP), USCINCSPACE is the single point of contact for military space operational matters. USCINCSPACE coordinates with the Joint Staff and appropriate CINCs to rep-resent the military on space operations while working with national, commercial, and international agencies.

Agencies and governments will address major questions about space. They’ll most likely move national policy toward better military control because potential adversaries will be able to use many commercial systems for military and commercial advantage. Decisions on whether to deploy National Missile Defense, develop antisatellite weapons, and allow weapons in space that can strike terrestrial targets will greatly affect future directions. Regardless of how these policies develop, the military’s opinions will be important. Likely additional policies will (1) guide the US govern-ment’s development of multilateral or bilateral agreements on surveillance and warning; (2) expand relations for command and control among CINCs who will use these weapons; (3) renegotiate the ABM or other treaties that new capabilities may affect; and (4) address how this nation will respond to attacks against our space assets.

A national space surveillance policy under development by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Space) must address what space objects we should be able to detect and track, and what surveillance services the military must offer civil and commercial users. Because surveillance of space is a key enabler for controlling space, this policy is a starting point for future development of a more comprehensive policy as our ability to control space matures.

Force Enhancement missions (e.g., terrestrial surveillance and navigation) will migrate to space, and their space-based information will integrate further into an automated global information system. At that point, we’ll need to develop a “global policy on sharing information” that will involve various civil, commercial, and military organizations. If US forces depend on foreign systems for space-based information, our policy must address what to do if these sources are denied for political reasons. This policy must detail how we’ll use space information from sources other than the US government to ensure national security.


The employment doctrine in Joint Publication 3-14 is a starting point for integrating space-derived information and space warfighting with land, sea, and air forces. To fully integrate space forces with their land, sea, and air counterparts, we’ll have to expand force application doctrine and build mature capabilities for force application.

Figure 7-3 Roadmap for Policy, Doctrine and CONOPS under Full Force Integration


We’ll need many CONOPS to expand the policies and doctrine for Global Engagement and Control of Space. Figure 7-3 depicts the ones we consider critical to Full Force Integration, such as the unique Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR) CONOPS, which must make up for losing selective availability (possibly as early as 2000). Another CONOPS will need to specify a common reference for navigation.

As available information becomes more integrated, we’ll need concepts to transform traditional categories for space-derived information (navigation, surveillance, warning, etc.) into categories of warfighting information (targeting, threat indications, geospatial, etc.). Other concepts will cover Protection, Prevention, and Negation (as part of Control of Space), as well as Force Application-employing and integrating those capabilities with forces from other mediums.

Assessing Policy and Doctrine

Changes to the UCP today recognize the need for a single point of contact for military space operations. The National Defense Panel’s report, cited below, acknowledges the importance of guaranteeing a secure space environment.

“We will need to recognize that the US lead in space will not go unchallenged. We must coordinate the civil, commercial and national security aspects of space, as use of space is a major element of national power.”
                    NDP Report
December 1997

The trend in these documents makes it clear that we’ll see more policy and doctrine emphasizing space security, with momentum increasing as warfighters discover the importance of space.

Directives and Recommendations

USCINCSPACE will direct plans for the following doctrine and CONOPS.

  • Control of Space Doctrine (SPJ3/5)
  • Space Force Application CONOPS (SPJ3)
  • Prevention/Protection and Negation CONOPS (SPJ3)
  • Navigation Warfare CONOPS (SPJ3)
  • Shared Information CONOPS (SPJ3/6)
  • Force Enhancement Information Types CONOPS (SPJ3/6)
  • Warfighter Information Types CONOPS (SPJ5/6)
  • Space Battle Manager CONOPS (SPJ3/5)
  • CONOPS for USSPACECOM Battle Managers (SPJ3/5)
  • Navigation Common Reference CONOPS (SPJ3/5)
  • Integrated Force Application CONOPS (SPJ3)

At the same time, USCINCSPACE should advocate the following policy, doctrine, and CONOPS at the national level.

  • Missile Defense Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • Force Application Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • National Space Surveillance Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • Worldwide Surveillance Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • Global Shared Information Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • Force Application Doctrine (SPJ5, JS)
  • Negation Policy (SPJ5, OSD Policy)
  • Global Defense Information Network CONOPS (SPJ5, DISA)


“Every day, someone finds a way to compare with—even equal—our leading edge technologies. But the difference in our favor, in the end, lies in our people and their training. The training of our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, along with the courage and information to command and control them well, is a decided advantage of our Forces. If we provide accurate and timely information to our trained warfighters, they will win. Without this, technology is of little worth”
VADM Lyle G. Bien, USN
Deputy USCINCSPACE, October 1997

As space forces become equal partners with land, sea, and air forces, warfighters must be confident and competent users of space capabilities and products. They must understand how space functions (communications, position/navigation, weather/terrain, warning, and reconnaissance/surveillance) affect warfighting functions (e.g., the Army’s Battlefield Operating System, the Air Force’s Core Competencies, and the Naval Expeditionary Force’s Critical Operational Capabilities). USSPACECOM will contribute to this understanding of space by advocating space knowledge in professional military education and incorporating space into operational unit training across the force, ensuring space integration into field and command post exercises, and employing accurate models and simulations of space capabilities (Figure 7-4). At the same time, space warfighters will understand land, sea, and air operations through pro-fessional military education (PME) and assignment experience.

Educating the Force

The goal of USSPACECOM’s effort in space education is to integrate space into the core curricula of PME to educate students on how space systems affect strategic, operational, and tactical warfighting. The command will do so by advocating space education to the Services and PME schools. As the UCP designated space advocate, USSPACECOM should define requirements for space education: current space capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities; space systems’ contributions to future warfighting (Joint Vision 2010); and the direct effect of space as a warfighting medium on defending the United States.

In 1998, space isn’t well integrated into the PME curricula. Education for warfighters must focus on how space enhances warfighting, not on space theory (orbital mechanics, space environment, etc.). In 1997, USSPACECOM briefed these requirements to the Military Education Coordination Conference (MECC), consisting of the Commandants or Presidents of key military colleges and universities. Our aim was to formally integrate space into school curricula and get space designated as a special area of emphasis. To help do so, we’re joining with the NRO to develop a common reference database, or space body of knowledge, to keep space information up to date. The objective is to integrate space into curricula of the senior service schools, staff colleges, and General Officer Capstone Course curricula by the summer of 1999. The schools include:

  • National War College
  • Industrial College of the Armed Forces
  • Army War College
  • Naval War College (both levels)
  • Air War College
  • Marine War College
  • Armed Forces Staff College
  • Army Command and General Staff College
  • Air Command and Staff College
  • Marine Corps Command and Staff College

By 2005, space will be in all professional military education, including:

  • Precommissioning
  • Officer Basic Courses
  • Advanced Officer Courses
  • Staff and Senior Colleges (listed above)
  • Selected NCO and other enlisted schools

By 2012, all military-education programs will teach space as integral to Joint Vision 2010’s warfighting doctrine and as a key to Precision Engagement, Dominant Maneuver, Focused Logistics, and Full Dimensional Protection.

Fig7-4.jpg (145322 bytes)
Figure 7-4 Roadmap for People

Training the Force

USSPACECOM must advocate integrating space into training at every level so warfighters can apply their knowledge of all space capabilities (national-level, military, and commercial) to their operational tasks. This classic concept-“train the way we fight”-means warfighters will have more space skills and, therefore, greater warfighting effectiveness. But this kind of training means Mission-Essential Tasks Lists (METLs) must incorporate space tasks. (METLs are baseline documents used to build unit training plans and exercises.) USSPACECOM must ensure all training events involve military (black and white) and commercial space assets.

USCINCSPACE’s METL for 1997 includes tasks for each space mission area in the UCP. These tasks flow down to the METLs of USSPACECOM’s Components, ending with individual training at serv-ice schools and space command units on how to operate space systems. The METLs of regional combatant commands don’t include using space capabilities. Efforts are underway to transfer these tasks to the staffs of regional CINCs from Joint and Service Space Support Teams-a first step toward integrating space employment across the force.

As space becomes a vital area of national interest around 2005, USCINCSPACE’s METL must change to include tasks for warfighting in space. Also as Joint Vision 2010’s concepts integrate space, the METLs of other regional CINCs must include the appropriate tasks. Services and units that acquire space systems will train operators to use them.

By 2012, USSPACECOM and the regional CINCs will include unit training for future space systems in their METLs.

Incorporating Space in Field and Command-Post Exercises

Field and simulated exercises are key to training that requires units to do mission-essential tasks. USSPACECOM must ensure that space events and organizational relationships become part of exercise scenarios, so warfighters will gain experience and confidence in using space systems.

Major exercises must expand their use of space through 1999, with more space events in scenarios that flow from one exercise to another. USSPACECOM, along with regional CINCs, will focus on developing and participating in two to three major exercises each year. This schedule will allow detailed preparation and produce the most benefits.

By 2005, field and command post training will routinely include space concepts, with or without USSPACECOM’s participation. Warfighters must synchronize space capabilities with other combat functions for best results, and Joint Staff exercises must continue integrating space into Joint Vision 2010’s operational concepts. USCINCSPACE-sponsored wargames will exercise space as a warfighting medium.

As the total force trains and fights using Joint Vision 2010 doctrine, they will exercise space as a full partner with land, sea, and air forces. Exercises that include support from space, operations in space, and space combat will train all forces.

Modeling and Simulation

Key to effective exercises are accurate space models and simulations that integrate seamlessly into higher-level models and exercises. They must accurately incorporate space capabilities (national, military, and commercial), so warfighters can plan for and use them properly.

The Portable Space Model integrates only warning against theater ballistic missiles into the Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol. We are trying to integrate modules for space-derived weather, communications, and navigation into this model to simulate space capabilities more accurately. The National Air and Space Warfare Model will start using the portable space model’s capabilities around 2005, integrating all space mission areas into the architecture for Joint Simulation System. Further, advanced modeling and simulation of space capabilities will allow tradespace studies to improve decision making on acquisitions. By 2012, as more space capabilities get into the field, analysts will update or develop simulation modules to ensure continued integration with the Joint Simulation System or future architectures. Services developing systems for space must provide corresponding models to make sure we continue to train the way we fight. Warfighting CINCs would have to approve exceptions to accurate, integrated models.

Establishing Partnerships for Education and Training

To take advantage of emerging developments in space, we need to consider partnering with private, public, and commercial sources of education-especially in areas where the DoD relies on commercial and other assets. We must also ensure allied and coalition partners understand how to apply space capabilities to warfighting and are trained to operate associated systems. Allies and coalition partners must also join us in training exercises and be able to access models and simulations that strengthen the use of space across the four warfighting mediums. International exchange students at US schools and combined exercises (e.g., Ulchi Focus Lens, Partnership for Peace) will give us excellent opportunities for this type of education and training.

Assessing People

The integration of space concepts into the four warfighting mediums through education, training, exercises, and modeling and simulation is achievable. As space capabilities are integrated across the force, warfighters must understand the impact of space. By 2012, space will be fully integrated into education, training, exercises, models, and simulations with allowances for updates as new systems come on line.

Directives and Recommendations for Education and Training

USSPACECOM and its Components will direct four main actions for educating and training war-fighters on space:

  • Develop and advocate operational requirements for space education, training exercises, and modeling and simulation. (SPJ3)
  • Help develop curricula and educate instructors for joint and service PME. (SPJ3)
  • Develop METLs for space forces and help regional CINCs with their METLs. (SPJ3)
  • Help regional CINCs develop exercises and participate in those exercises. (SPJ3)

In addition, USSPACECOM strongly recommends that:

  • Services and PME schools integrate space into core curricula. (Services, JSJ7, Schools)
  • Regional CINCs include space tasks in their METLs and exercises. (Regional CINCs)
  • Services train on how to operate space systems. (Regional CINCs)
  • All new models and simulations include space capabilities. (Services)


The US military forces are in the early stages of an information revolution. Warfighters can access amounts of information previously thought impossible to deliver and manage. We can bring much more information to the battlefield in near real time, but because many organizations manage this information, it’s largely stovepiped, often inaccessible, and poorly fused, and it doesn’t transfer well among systems.

Emerging trends in information management and developing technology (especially commercial) suggest the directions future architectures will take. The DoD’s space systems must stay in step with these directions if we are to achieve Full Force Integration. Key technologies and developments include:

  • Bandwidth. In the next 20 years, we believe the lack of on-demand bandwidth will cease to be the major limitation it is today. Microwave, fiber-optic and satellite communications networks (military and commercial) are growing at an amazing rate and will support entirely new concepts of distribution. These systems will improve our ability to access bandwidth-on-demand.
  • Satellite communications. A dramatic story that’s stimulated mostly by commercial demands. Satellite communications-from traditional geosynchronous to low or medium earth orbits-will make it possible to bring unprecedented volumes of information to mobile forces.
  • Web technologies. Internet technologies are changing information systems. Internet-led developments make it possible for operators at every level to extract focused and relevant information out of ever expanding databases-and to sort intelligently and flexibly through an enormous flow of sensor reports in near real time.
  • Fusion. Breakthroughs in information-fusion techniques will make it possible to more easily turn previously disconnected bits of information into real-time knowledge on the battlefield.
  • Cataloging. Intelligently managing the large volumes of information available to the war-fighter is key to gaining information superiority. Correctly categorizing or labeling types of information will speed the dissemination of the right information to the right people.
  • Cross Cueing. Sensors which cue or alert other sensors to focus in a particular area or medium will improve the probability of collection, precision, and integrity of the data. The correlation of data from multiple sensors about the same subject is key to providing the most accurate possible information to the warfighter.
  • Dissemination. The intelligent distribution of information coupled with greater capacity and improved communications technology will provide the warfighter more timely and reliable information.
  • Multilevel security. This ability will make possible fusing information from all classification levels into a single operational picture.

These developments combine to make virtually all information (whether near real time or in extended databases) available to warfighters. A global defense information network accessible by any level of command through a “battle manager,” is one way to visualize the information future. Figures 7-5 and 7-6 try to capture the contrast between present and future military information systems.

To integrate space-derived information with that from land, sea, and air, USSPACECOM must (1) develop battle managers to handle USSPACECOM’s missions; (2) adopt common standards to enable interoperability for systems USSPACECOM and its components own; (3) advocate these standards to external owners of space systems; and (4) determine common types of “warfighter information,” so warfighters get space information in readily useable formats.

Figure 7-5 Current Information Structure

Figure 7-6 Future Information Structure

Developing Battle Managers for USSPACECOM

Battle managers are local, automated systems for managing information. They consist of hardware, software, and databases that depend on the global grid for connectivity. USSPACECOM and its components will develop battle managers tailored to satisfy space missions. We’re referring to all battle managers for space missions as USSPACECOM Battle Managers. We expect these battle managers to include missions under such operational concepts as Global Engagement and Control of Space. They’ll also support decision makers at the CINC, Component, and Joint Task Force levels. These battle managers will integrate fully with each other (see Figure 7-7).

Fig7-7.jpg (114199 bytes)
Figure 7-7 USSPACECOM Battle Managers

USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers evolve from N/UWSS and the Space Operations Center’s Space Battle Manager. They develop according to the timelines in Figure 7-8.

Figure 7-8 Development of USSPACECOM Battle Managers

Among other functions, USSPACECOMs Battle Managers may need to fuse information for, and/or support:

  • Status of own forces. This informs commanders about the location, readiness, support status, activities, and intentions of subordinate forces. In most cases, our own units report this information. USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers would include information about constellations, launch ranges, control networks, and, eventually, weapons.
  • Status of hostile forces. This information usually comes from ISR systems and covers the same areas as for our own forces. In space, this would mean information about the enemy’s space assets and threats to friendly space forces.
  • Status of the environment. This information includes weather, oceanography, mapping, charting, and all other information commanders would need about the battlespace environment.
  • Command and control. Battle managers would process collaborative plans, commanders’ intentions, directions, priorities, and other elements of command and control. For space, this would include actively defending our assets, managing surge launches, command and control of space-based weapons, tailoring constellations to tactical situations, and handling issues for command and control.
  • Information fusion. Although fusing is improving as more intelligent algorithms emerge, the fused data will become highly distributed. USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers may overcome this dispersion by fusing information to build a space picture and making that fused product available to all interested users of the global grid.
  • Decision Support. Decision support demands ever more sophisticated approaches. It includes techniques such as advanced systems to display information, battlefield video conferences to improve collaborative planning, and using modeling and simulation in real time to examine alternative courses of action. USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers would host much of the decision support for space.
  • Information sharing. No commander fights alone on a modern battlefield. The battle managers of individual commanders also develop a common picture among peer and senior commanders. For example, as USCINCSPACE uses USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers for command and control, interoperability among systems and information will allow information sharing, giving the Joint Forces Commander, as well as the Component Commanders for land, sea, and air, complete insight into the status of space forces.
  • Tasking. Archived data may not satisfy some requests for information, so commanders may need new information. Interoperating battle managers will automatically task sources to capture the data or will recommend sources to commanders.
  • Modeling and Simulation. Battle managers will offer state-of-the-art models and simulations that accurately represent all of USSPACECOM’s missions to support decision making, exercises, and training.
  • Dynamic planning and execution. Commanders and units need to react rapidly to changing situations in the battlespace and redirect actions. Battle managers would use models and simulations to manipulate resource details in real time and generate “what if” situations that support replanning. Then, when a plan is firm, a battle manager will generate the right orders to carry out new actions.

USSPACECOM’s Battle Managers will process, cross cue, fuse, and rapidly disseminate information so warfighters can respond more effectively to changing circumstances in peace, crises, and war.

As stated above, no commander fights alone on a modern battlefield. USSPACECOM will ensure its battle managers are fully interoperable to provide products to, or receive products from, other CINCs’ battle managers. A global defense information network (Figure 7-9) will allow battle managers to work together. This network-possibly a future version of the current Defense Information Infrastructure-will support combat operations at all echelons and through all chains of command. Battle managers will be key enablers of network centric warfare.

The name “Global Defense Information Network” was selected to avoid confusion with current terms. A network structure of this type makes possible a robust, interoperable system of battle managers. Without it, USSPACECOM‘s Battle Managers must stand alone. The Global Command and Control System and Global Combat Support Systemare operational precursors to this envisioned architecture.


Chapter 7 – Full Force Integration

OperationBold Quest 13.2′ – Combat Coalition | lisaleaks

Department of Defense Global Information Grid Architectural Vision