Defense Tech: NRO (not NSA) On the Chopping Block


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Defense Tech Radio Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Podcast Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Soldier Systems Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

NRO (not NSA) On the Chopping Block

For decades its name could not be spoken outside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or mentioned to someone without at least TS/SCI clearance.

It built wondrous satellites that did things like detecting missile launches from space that no one had believed possible until the National Reconnaissance Office did them.

But a string of failures, goofs and budget busters, combined with the increasing importance of intelligence gathered by air breathing assets such as Predator and Global Hawk drones, has led a prestigious commission of space experts to recommend that the NRO be merged with Space and Missile Systems Command to create something called the National Security Space Organization.

The recommendation is made by something called the Allard Commission, which was created by Congress last year. It is led by the national security space guru Tom Young, a former Lockheed Martine executive and the man who always seems to get the call to figure out how to fix space when things go wrong. Young has kept his panel’s recommendations under wraps but word began leaking out last week.

The plan would also lead to stripping the Air Force of its executive agent for space – the person who serves the Office of Secretary of Defense as the lead on unclassified space acquisitions – and transferring it to the new authority. This office will also have budget authority for all space programs.

This would include a combination of the NRO and SMC and “other elements of Air Force Space Command” to create a single National Security Space Command.

A veteran space intelligence expert, Bob Butterworth, rejected the Allard Commission’s proposals, especially its efforts to integrate so-called black (NRO) and white (military) space. “The effort to integrate is just misconceived,” he said. “People who even started out doing black-white integration mostly gave up after going through the first space based radar experience.” Space Radar was an idea generated from the top of the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon. It was supposed to provide the US with both moving target indication – the ability to track trucks and tanks – and highly refined strategic radar imagery of use to the intelligence community. The idea has foundered on the rocks of wildly differing requirements and enormous cost.

Integration exponents also argue that the space industrial base is largely shared between the two communities. Thus, integrating programs could save money and lessen the strain on the limited pool of engineers and other specialists needed to build satellites and their sensors.

“That has not been documented. It is just hand waving as far as I can tell,” Butterworth said.

For those watch these things closely, the Allard Commission’s use of the NSSO name has caused considerable confusion in the rumor mill. Was the commission recommending dissolution of the NSSO, an office without budgetary authority that advises the Pentagon’s executive agent for space? No. It was suggesting creation of an entirely new organization.

Part of the NRO’s problem is that under current law no one really knows – including congressional aides who help write the laws deciding this – who is in charge of classified acquisition programs. “This raises the question, who is in charge, and that is unanswerable,” said a congressional aide. For background on some of this, see last week’s story on the BASIC program.

Does this mean the NRO will vanish? The name may change, the organization may be rebuilt but the functions won’t disappear. More on this tomorrow.

-- Colin Clark

Comments

Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 05:17 AM

There are distinct advantages to either types of platforms, Cole, whether atmospheric based or space-based. There are also distinct disadvantages.

Take care -- and I leave you with a thought. Is it 'out of sight, out of mind', or, 'out of mind, out of sight'?

Posted by: Daniel at September 3, 2008 06:52 AM

the best Article.Thank you

Posted by: Cheap Generic Cialis at August 29, 2008 05:42 PM

Posted by: Cheap Paxil.Buy Paxil.Order Paxil.Generic Paxil at August 29, 2008 05:41 PM

Cole, while I agree that the tensions and rhetoric have lessened considerably since the height of the Cold War, the range of "acceptable" actions by nations has decreased. It is politically unacceptable to send U-2s over Russia and China.

If we stealth them up, there is always the danger that another nation will believe its something worse than a spyplane. We don't want someone to mistake a stealthy Global Hawk for a B-2. The consequences of THAT would be too great.

Posted by: Brian at August 28, 2008 11:37 AM

The solution:

(1) Give up on the monolithic, do-everything satellites with their extreme development risk and and loss risk

(2) Let the R&D guys and engineers build and launch far more application-specific sats based on a common platform. The risk is lowered, failures are less expensive, and the engineers get to build their skill sets and talent pool thanks to many more sat iterations.

(3) Reduce the internal political and management empires with their suffocating risk-aversion that go along with the mega-sat projects.

(4) Take some risks, give the teams some breathing space and let them run with their ideas and vision.

Posted by: Noncom at August 28, 2008 03:53 AM

Cut the overhead alone & merge these.
Save time & money.
Viable.
More funding for troops or other projects.
Naval Laser weapons & JSF & new SFCOM assult rifles & more forces for Afganistan.
CUT the DC bureaucracy alone.

Posted by: stephen russell at August 27, 2008 10:24 PM

Joe, I hear you, but there probably are few pilots (B-2) willing to sit in a manned aircraft for 24 hours at time. The dirty, dull, and dangerous have always been primary UAS missions. Gary Powers found out the dangerous part with respect to U-2s. We certainly had the SR-71 for years and suspect it flew over the USSR at times which I believe prompted creation of the Mig-25. Today, it would be difficult for a non-stealth anything to fly over Russia or China whether manned or unmanned.

But recall that we were fixated on the nuclear threat back then. Missiles and bombers ruled the roost and the rhetoric if tough now, was nothing compared to back then. Don't believe any nuclear-equipped power today believes it would use nukes on a similary-equipped nation...except perhaps Iran on Israel (suicidal). With that in mind, couldn't we get by with fewer satellites now for Russia and China, using high-altitude UAS for everything else?

Believe there will be cuts in coming year budgets, and ISR satellites seem like areas where big bucks could be saved. Don't think satellites will win the war on terror, and they certainly didn't stop the Russians from invading Georgia.

Posted by: Cole at August 27, 2008 06:28 PM

Chris, good points, but believe Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk already approach or exceed 24 hours of continuous flight. A 3 day flight was just completed by another UAV demonstrator and 5 days or longer appears feasible with hydrogen fuel cells, solar hybrid, or all solar UAS. Years of flight will be possible in the future.

Understand the ramifications of "violating" airspace but we certainly did it over the USSR and China until Gary Powers was shot down. We do it over Pakistan and other nations today with Predator. Where does space begin? If you could build an endurance UAS that could fly over small troubled area for months to years, wouldn't that be cheaper and more mission effective than diverting a satellite?

If a UAS flies above 65,000' it has no contrail and a small one would be difficult to detect visibly or with IR trackers. Add radar stealth and very few nations could shoot it down.

But understand the need for satellites. It also turns out much of what I described earlier is a stealth cruise missile...other than the endurance and the expendability. It also turns out that LockMart has considered a variation of JSSAM as a UAS called Minion. So the idea is by no means new.

Posted by: Cole at August 27, 2008 06:15 PM

In addition to less counter attack threats, aren't space based assets much less likely to be compromised, in terms of the technology falling (not intended as a pun) into the wrong hands.

Other than the increased loiter time of newer aircraft, and the lack of a human inside, why are UAVs better than manned AVs.

When we started going to space, we already had the U2, right? So what were the reasons we went to space in the first place, and how are they less relevant now than they were 40 years ago? It's gotta be more than the threat to the pilot's life.

Posted by: Joe at August 27, 2008 05:01 PM

Cole,

No secret knowledge on my part, but I can't imagine that a UAV can give you the full range of coverage that a satellite network can. I see satellites having a number of advantages that we can't replicate with UAVs.

1) Satellites can remain in space for many years. While a UAV may give much longer loiter times over an area, you're still looking at only 12 hours or so in one flight over a very limited area. A satellite might only give you 10 seconds twice a day over an area, but it can give you that twice a day update for 5 or 10 years. It will certainly be much more expensive than a single UAV flight, but you get a level of persistance that is not feasible with UAVs.

2) Satellites don't require us to violate another nation's airspace. A stealthy UAV could probably fly over Moscow if we wanted it to, but we risk causing an international incident every time we send a UAV over the territory of a nation with whom we are at peace. If tensions are already running high, it may not be diplomatically feasible to send in stealth aircraft. The same *especially* applies when you're talking about launching UAVs from F-22s or B-2s. Satellites are a much more passive and less threatening method of observation.

3) Satellites are also in a safer position as far as counter-attack. A UAV flying in North Korean or Russian airspace can be shot down (even a stealthy one), and with good cause. No one can deny a nation's right to protect its own airspace. We would certainly shoot down a Chinese UAV that was flying over Los Angeles. But launching an attack on a satellite requires greater technical skill and produces a much much MUCH larger backlash. It's just not something a country can get away with doing.

Posted by: Brian at August 27, 2008 01:29 PM

And they shall call this new space agency Stargate Command.

Sorry.

Posted by: Bryan Price at August 27, 2008 12:51 PM

Understand what you guys are saying. I had also read the U-2 article earlier which cued and reminded me that a stealthy UAS could handle most of the jobs currently handled by more costly satellites. Googling: "unmanned aircraft versus satellites" produces some interesting ideas for alternatives that are apparently already being considered by DARPA.

I can envision a B-2 or 2018 unmanned B-3 delivering persistent smaller UAS over a broad range of target areas flying well above 65,000'. Some might be stealthy smaller UAS. Others could be non-stealthy endurance UAS when the threat nation lacks air defenses capable of engaging the UAS. These UAS could carry either sensor-only or lightweight gliding munition payloads, or a combination of both. The capability of the unmanned B-3 to refuel, rearm, and recover the smaller stealthy or endurance UAS could also be considered.

Believe in coming decades of high fuel-expense and requirements for stealth, the future USAF must get by with fewer multi-purpose aircraft. A CSAR-X must do more than combat aircrew personnel recovery. A KC-X must do much more than aerial refueling. A B-3 bomber should take the B-2 cue and be few in number but with expanded capabilities. Perhaps even the F-22 could drop the same stealthy UAS with persistent and/or lethal capability. A rocket should also be able to deliver the same stealthy UAS for short notice missions.

Enough Buck Rogers, but seriously, can't imagine that a stealth satellite would ever be less expensive than a stealth UAS...or as versatile.

Posted by: Cole at August 27, 2008 12:44 PM

In the post below, I mistakenly attributed Cole's statement to Princeton Scotch. My apologies.

Posted by: Gray Rinehart at August 27, 2008 09:08 AM

I'm glad to see someone else is discussing this; I posted about it on my blog and the Space Warfare Forum I moderate, but have only gotten e-mail replies so far.

Princeton Scotch wrote, "If unmanned aircraft can do the same thing less expensively with far greater persistence over targets, it seems the only place satellites help is over threat airspace in peacetime."

They don't do the same thing, but that's a common misconception. It's the difference between reconnaissance and surveillance -- persistence over the target provides the latter, the ability to go beyond the range of other means provides the former. Putting the two together is possible, but it doesn't optimize either one.

Posted by: Gray Rinehart at August 27, 2008 09:06 AM

Cole: The answer to your question is classified. What intelligence agencies typically do is more or less common knowledge. Its the how that makes these things classified. Equipment, Operations all fall under this. That includes those satellites.

I would say if the the technology on the satellites are replicated else where, for less money, then go for it. Combining 2 agencies is always going to be a headache. Neither one is going to want to budge in their ways, its just going to have to be hammered out.

It could be the best thing for satellite technologies. It could spur a huge advancement it capabilities.

Posted by: Kujo21 at August 27, 2008 08:33 AM

If you want to go black, please feel free. The rest of us like knowing state secrets :d

Posted by: princeton scotch at August 27, 2008 08:01 AM

Believe you meant to say that the NRO is on the chopping block...not the NSA.

Like most folks, I don't know anything about any of these agencies or satellites which is why Colin probably has trouble getting folks to comment/care about something so nebulous and black. In a variation of the old saying, "Don't tell me because I don't wanna get shot."

But if it's even possible to talk about such stuff without going black, why do we spend so much on these satellites? If unmanned aircraft can do the same thing less expensively with far greater persistence over targets, it seems the only place satellites help is over threat airspace in peacetime.

Threat nations aren't dumb. They can track the satellite and know when they are overhead twice or more a day. They can simply conduct operations underground ala the Iranians.

In addition, any satellite photos I've ever seen or heard of being used in tactical operations weren't much help to ground commanders or S2 who are not trained analysts. Camouflage can defeat even trained analysis.

Add to all this how slowly the information generally gets to the tactical element, and guess I'm uncertain that we are getting value for the money. Add how easy it many become to shoot these down, and maybe these Cold War tools have outlived their usefulness. Maybe add smaller sensors onto communications, navigation, weather, and commericial satellites? Near space? Heck, imagine we could fly a stealthy version of a U2-type aircraft over nearly any country with relative impunity.

Someone tell me (without going black) why we should care about satellites for intelligence.

Posted by: Cole at August 27, 2008 07:21 AM

NRO (not NSA) On the Chopping Block

Comments

Post a comment