In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
In 2015, a Japanese RFP for the development of electro-magnetic rail guns for their aegis destroyers was issued.
In an article published on Navy Recognition on July 22, 2015, details of the development were highlighted.
According to the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) request for proposal (RfP) to bidding contractors, the 27DD destroyers will incorporate a number of design changes compared to the first batch of Atago class guided missile destroyers.
First, the hull of 27DD has been enlarged to an empty displacement of 8,200 tons compared to the original Atago’s 7,700 tons. It is believed in the Japanese defense community that the enlargement of the hull was conceived in order to provide a necessary growth space for advanced naval weapon systems that are currently under development in Japan, and will be incrementally added to the ships’ arsenal as they are developed — such as railguns and laser point-defense systems.
Like all Japanese combatant ships now being constructed, the 27DD destroyers will be powered by a COGLAG propulsion system (these two, as would be explained again later, would represent a series of essential improvements to the ships’ space and power management and distribution in light of the new weaponry that they will operate in the near future).
On the more minor technical front, the new ships will also equip a new surface-search radar (the AN/SPQ-9B from Northrop Grumman), new anti-ship missiles, a multi-static sonar system, and an enhanced Aegis combat system that will offer better Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).
Eventually, the Japanese MoD envisions their new AEGIS ships to be the first operating platform of an indigenous naval railgun and laser point-defense system that they are locally developing in Japan. The plan for the railgun armament was outlined in their recently published FY2015 defense budget report…..
On 31 July, Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency has released video footage showing a prototype of electromagnetic railgun for the first time. This is the first official confirmation of the development of a program a new generation of weapons systems for Japan Self-Defense Forces.
Details of the Japanese railgun programme have not yet been made available. It is noted that this electromagnetic railgun weapons system may be outfitted aboard on next-generation destroyers, possibly the Type 27DD.
The railgun utilizes a combination of electric and magnetic force to fire a projectile by means of a sliding armature that is accelerated along a pair of conductive rails. The railgun uses a pair of parallel conductors, or rails, along which a sliding armature is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the armature and then back along the other rail.
The electromagnetic railgun is capable of firing a projectile 100 miles away and has a low cost of projectiles compared to conventional weaponry.
On top of the reduction in costs per projectile, the railgun limits the need to maintain a large quantity of heavy explosive tipped shells, increasing safety on board navy vessels, and reducing logistics costs and needs. Ships at sea can afford to stay out for longer periods without resupply, reducing the burden of at sea replenishment operations.
According to press reports, two drones armed with explosives detonated near Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on August 4, 2018, in an apparent assassination attempt that took place while he was delivering a speech to hundreds of soldiers, while the speech was being broadcast live on television.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro escaped an “attack” when multiple drones carrying explosives detonated near him as he gave a speech at a military ceremony Saturday, his government say, adding seven soldiers were wounded.
According to an article by Juan Forero and Kejal Vyas published in the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Maduro, standing beside his wife Cilia Flores, looked up at the sky momentarily as he was promising that “the hour of the economic recuperation” had arrived. His speech ended abruptly, and the broadcast then panned to the face of a young soldier before focusing on the street in front of a makeshift stand where Mr. Maduro had been standing.
Soldiers, who had been standing at attention, could be seen scrambling. In the midst of the confusion, a voice could be heard saying, “Let’s go to the right.”
Scholars who closely follow Venezuelan politics said Mr. Maduro could use the incident to detain foes and tighten his grip on the military. “It’s standard practice for their government to use any public disturbance to crack down further,” said Eric Farnsworth, head of the Washington office of the Council of the Americas.
Some analysts suggested that Saturday’s incident could have been staged by the government for that purpose. They noted that throughout 19 years of rule, Mr. Maduro and predecessor Hugo Chávez frequently claimed to have uncovered plots to depose them without offering details. But Harold A. Trinkunas, deputy director of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said the images of soldiers running and people onstage being startled were “both dramatic and unfavorable to Maduro.”
“If you wanted an excuse for repression, I think the government would have chosen something that would not make Maduro appear as vulnerable,” he said.
Oleg Vornik, DroneShield’s Chief Executive Officer, commented “The history of commercial drone incidents involving heads of state goes back to September 2013 when the German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s public appearance was disrupted by a drone, which was apparently a publicity stunt by a competing political party.
“Yesterday’s apparent drone assassination attempt on Venezuelan President Maduro is the first known drone attack on a head of state. An attempted drone assassination of a sitting sovereign leader demonstrates that, sadly, the era of drone terrorism has well and truly arrived.”
In a new study published by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the authors, Thomas Mahnken, Ross Babbage, and Toshi Yoshihara, look at the challenge posed by the authoritarian states in shaping coercive political strategies and how the liberal democracies might respond to them.
They conclude their study in terms of both the need to recognize the challenge and to respond to it.
“Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow have clearly committed themselves to far-ranging efforts at political warfare that hope to achieve the ability to comprehensively coerce the United States and its allies.
“Only by clearly and frankly acknowledging the problem and organizing the respective governments to respond do we stand a chance of defending fee societies from these sophisticated efforts at manipulating public opinion and the decision-making pace of elected officials and government policy makers.”
In their report, they provide overviews of both the Russian and Chinese approaches and provide good overviews of the approaches.
With regard to Putin, information warfare is a key element of both covering up Russian weaknesses and probing adversaries divisions. Putin came to maturity in the context of the Euromissile crisis and he is leveraging lessons learned in that period for the current one.
In contrast, the Chinese are leveraging significant global reach and investments to expand their ability to influence internal policies in the democratic societies. The Chinese have an economic card significantly greater than anything the Russians can put on the table.
Clearly, there is growing recognition of the Chinese threat, evidenced by books such as the Silent Revolution or by broader discussions of the challenge posed by China in Australia, as an example.
As Ross Babbage put it in an interview in my last visit to Australia with regard to the Australian situation:
Dr. Babbage sees growing recognition in both the United States and Australia about the nature of the challenges facing us.
“To respond is not simply about military capabilities; it is about whole of government capabilities and indeed whole of nation and whole of alliance capabilities.”
“And we need to have a much more open and frank discussion with our publics about the nature of the challenges we are facing.
I think the starting point is to share factual stories about what the Chinese and the Russians are actually doing both within their own societies and also within ours. “
In the report, the authors argued more generally that there is growing recognition of the threat posed by the Chinese approach.
“There are early signs that Beijing’s political warfare operations have awoken many decision-makers in the United States and its close allies to the nature and scale of the strategic challenge posed by China.”
The final chapter addresses recommendations for the United States and its allies.
At the heart of their analysis and their recommendation is simply to recognize the reality of the threat and the tools shaped to challenge cohesion and responses within the liberal democracies.
But how best to do so is a broad challenge indeed given the dynamics of change within the Western societies themselves.
Earlier this year, I visited the new Helsinki-based Center which is focused upon the challenges of information warfare and the various tool sets which authoritarian states are shaping and leveraging to compete with and expand their influence with the liberal democracies.
As I wrote after visiting the Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats:
The work of the Centre is at the vortex of a key vector for liberal democracies, namely the evolution of these democracies under the influence of a 21st century information society and with non-liberal actors seeking to use the new instruments to influence the evolution of the democratic societies.
The underlying dynamic is change within the liberal democracies themselves.
Conflict has deepened, and the internet and associated means of communication have enhanced conflict rather than consensus within the liberal democracies.
President Trump has spoken frequently of “fake news” and although his critics condemn this phrase, we all know it exists and is a core challenge facing the liberal democracies.
It is the change associated with the new means of communication along with the evolution of a more differentiate and disaggregated society which provides the entry point for adversaries to conduct hybrid warfare in the information domain.
In other words, it is not about warfare per se; it is about the evolution of liberal democracies and the expanded tool sets which non-liberal actors have to seek to influence the culture, actions and decisions of the liberal democracies.
In the CSBA study the authors noted the historical example from the Reagan years of the launching of the Strategic Defense Initiative as in part information war.
“The SDI put in motion a chain of events that ultimately made the Soviet leadership aware that it could not compete with the United States in high-technology weaponry.”
I would add however that a relatively ignored piece of this story is the Farwell Affair where President Mitterrand reached out to President Reagan inspite of the ideological hostility of the US Administration to him and informed the President of the significant penetration of the Soviet Union within the highest levels of foreign governments and the US.
The Soviets were stealing US technology at levels even exceeding what the Chinese are now capable of doing.
And through the Farwell Affair, the Soviet operation was shut down and their confidence in what the US was doing in defense technology was dramatically reduced.
A good warning for our times and beyond that allies can help each other even if they have their differences in dealing with the challenges posed by the authoritarian societies.
Also a good reminder that authoritarian societies are never as powerful as they seem.
Five helicopters conduct a Multi Spot Operation Exercise on the Flight Deck of HMAS Adelaide, which includes the embarked Royal Australian Navy MRH-90 Helicopter, two United States Marine Corps AH-1Z Viper Helicopters and two United States Marine Corps UH-1Y Venom Helicopters during Exercise RIMPAC 18.
Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC 18) is a biennial military training exercise to strengthen international maritime partnerships, enhance interoperability and improve the readiness of participating forces for a wide range of potential operations.
Now in its 25th iteration, the Australian Defence Force deployed HMA Ships Adelaide, Success, Toowoomba, Melbourne and Rankin, an amphibious landing force from 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and one P-8A Poseidon aircraft.
The multinational activity, held from 27 June to 2 August 2018 in Hawaii and off the coast of California, is the world’s largest maritime exercise and includes 25,000 personnel from 25 countries.
Australian personnel will exercise across a broad spectrum of scenarios from humanitarian assistance and disaster response to maritime security operations, sea control and complex war fighting.
Participating personnel and assets will conduct gunnery, missile, anti-submarine, and air-defence exercises, as well as maritime interdiction and vessel boarding, explosive ordnance disposal, diving and salvage operations, mine clearance operations and an amphibious landing.
During the RIMOAC 2018 exercise, RAAF air traffic controllers enhanced their experiences in managing maritime air traffic onboard HMAS Adelaide.
According to a story published by the Australian Navy on August 3, 2018 and written by Stephanie Anderson:
Two Air Traffic Control Officers posted to HMASAdelaideare taking advantage of an opportunity rarely afforded Air Force personnel.
SQNLDR Daniel Lee is the Senior Air Traffic Control Officer, and FLTLT Jennifer Slater is the Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO) onboard HMASAdelaide, both posting to the ship in January 2018.
Air Force supports HMA Ships AdelaideandCanberraLHDs with ATCOs on two year postings.
ATCOs who work in the LHDs have a keen interest in amphibious operations, working in a joint and coalition team, and travelling around the world.
FLTLT Slater said day to day life at sea has its own challenges, but comes with personal and professional growth.
“It is a pretty amazing environment, everything is within 230 metres and 11 decks and every day is different both in location and evolutions being conducted,” she said
“The personal challenges of being away from your family can take their toll, but the ship has a strong and supportive team, and the cohesion of the shared experience makes for a strong sea family.”
Since obtaining her Harbour Watchkeeping Certificate, FLTLT Slater carries out duties looking afterAdelaidealongside on behalf of the Commanding Officer.
“Attaining my Harbour Watchkeeping Certificate was definitely challenging and something unusual for an Air Force ATCO. You need to display an understanding of damage control systems throughout the ship and be able to take control in the event of a real incident alongside” she said
Air Traffic Controllers provide a maritime control service to aircraft embarked inAdelaideor working withAdelaideas part of a task group, including traffic and navigational information, and precise direction of aircraft in poor weather approaches.
FLTLT Slater said during Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) they were coordinating with both military and civil Air Traffic Controllers, the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC), helicopters and ships of multi-national forces.
“The highlight for RIMPAC was watching our ship operate at its full capacity with helicopter operations and amphibious landing craft operations occurring concurrently.”
SQNLDR Lee said the ship was like a floating airfield.
“There are similarities with respect to core air traffic control skills and we apply our skills acquired from controlling at RAAF air bases to controlling the aircraft from our ship,” he said
“One of the key considerations is the ship’s location; it is imperative for flight safety that aircraft are aware of our ship’s position as it moves across the ocean,”
“This allows the aircrew to plan appropriately for fuel and navigation.”
SQNLDR Lee said working as part of ship’s company and contributing to the nation’s amphibious capability is a tremendously rewarding experience.
“We have been afforded the opportunity to use our core skills in a unique and dynamic environment; variety is one of the great aspects of a career as an Air Force Air Traffic Control Officer.”
The featured photo shows Royal Australian Air Force Air Traffic Controllers, Squadron Leader Daniel Lee and Flight Lieutenant Jen Slater, onboard HMAS Adelaide’s flight deck during Exercise RIMPAC 18.
By Stephen Blank
Not a day passes without a fresh revelation of Russian probes against the West somewhere in the world.
By now audiences are possibly accustomed to this fact but it remains difficult for elites, ot to mention ordinary citizens, to grasp that Moscow has been waging a war, even if it is a political and largely non-kinetic war, against the West for over a decade.
In this war Moscow’s strategy truly is a whole of government or whole of state strategy and is accompanied by signs of an ever deeper mobilization of civilian assets and resources for the purposes of this struggle.
As the Israeli scholar Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky has astutely written, Moscow’s strategy is one of “multi-domain coercion.”
In other words, Moscow fights this war on many simultaneous fronts and theaters and uses all the instruments of national power at its disposal.
And since Vladimir Putin, like any good Tsar, owns the state and the national economy he can commandeer any resource he wants or create new ones to wage this war.
Thus the purely military manifestations of this war have hitherto been confined to Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria and to the unceasing development of modern conventional and nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, scanning Russia’s global operations, we find the employment of organized crime, the energy weapon, penetration of media, political and economic elites, foreign political parties, classic espionage on a scale comparable to that of the Brezhnev era.
Putin has also created new types of Russian instruments to wage this war.
In particular we now encounter the phenomenon of so called private military companies (PMC’s) that recruit Russian men to fight abroad for profit.
These mercenaries evoke not only the medieval and Renaissance Condotierre, but also more recent British, French, and American mercenary or private companies but there is nothing private about them.
The organizers of these units like Wagner, the most well-known among them, are Kremlin insiders, oligarchs and millionaires or billionaires whose fortunes , like all private property, are essentially beholden to the state in return for their state service.
Since property is conditional upon state service – a hallmark of Russia’s continuing feudalism- they are either eager to show their devotion to the state and Russian interests by organizing such units or are instructed to do so.
These units offer the Kremlin the benefit of plausible deniability, take the strain of outfitting and maintaining them off the Kremlin and the regular state budget as they are financed by these oligarchs, and allow Moscow to operate at home and abroad below the threshold of Article V of the Washington Treaty or international law.
The appearance of these so called PMC’s or private operators acting on behalf of Moscow represent an innovation in the art of political warfare that has been particularly difficult for the West to contend with.
But we should not make the mistake of thinking that they are not instruments of war.
Moreover, they are ubiquitous. In the United States we have abundant evidence of so called private actors who were deeply involved in the effort to corrupt the U.S.’ presidential election in 2018 or infiltrate key interest groups.
Aleksandr’ Torshin and his “protégé” Maria Butina, who are clearly agents of Russian intelligence figured prominently in Russian efforts to infiltrate the NRA and then the GOP.
In Macedonia and Greece we see that a prominent Greek businessman with ties to Moscow, Ivan Savvidis, apparently helped organize Moscow’s efforts to undermine the recent Greco-Macedonian agreement on changing the name of Macedonia to North Macedonia in order to facilitate its entry into NATO.
Konstantin Malofeev, another Kremlin oligarch and patron of the Orthodox Church organized private forces to instigate the failed coup in Montenegro in late 2016 and in Ukraine in 2014.
And in Ukraine all kinds of so called private or irregular forces were organized or recruited to fight in both the Crimea and the Donbass.
The Wagner group, as is well known, fought a pitched battle with U.S. and Kurdish forces in February over a Syrian refinery, a sign of their mercenary motives.
This lure of material gain that attracts men to these kinds of operation as well as the similar attraction that also helps motivate Kremlin oligarchs to outfit such operations is a major motive for both the Russian state and its servitors in organizing these groups.
Nor are they confined to Syria or the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
On July 31-August 1 three Russian journalists who were in the Central African Republic to investigate the Wagner group fighting there were murdered under circumstances that remain unclear.
But this tragedy also shows that Moscow is now reaching into Africa in new and innovative ways that it has employed in Europe and the Middle East.
In many ways these groups are also the latest incarnation of a process begun when the Soviet Union collapsed and many former intelligence operatives were forced to swim in the new world of capitalism by making a name for themselves in the provision of security services at home or abroad.
The most well-known of the was Viktor Bout,. Bout probably was a former member of the GRU who became known as an international “merchant of death” for his prowess in organizing large-scale arms deliveries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Until Bout was busted in a DEA sting in 2008 by the DEA he was living in Moscow and enjoying the hospitality of Vladimir Putin despite being wanted by Interpol. When busted in 2008 he was in Bangkok, almost certainly on Moscow’s instructions, attempting to run guns to Leftist insurgents, the FARC, in Colombia, our Latin American ally.
Since Moscow was already organizing similar ventures through Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, it is clear that Bout represented a second, more illicit effort by so called private operators to promote Russian interests. Indeed, once Bout was arrested the Russian government went into overdrive to prevent his extradition.
This now appears to be the case as well with regard to Maria Butina, suggesting that she is indeed a spy or kremlin agent.
Thus the use of private military companies or private financiers to advance Russian interests or the use of so called unofficial groups like the Russian biker group the Night Wolves threatens security wherever they appear.
Indeed, the President of Slovakia has just called the Night Wolves a threat to security.
These “private” organizations are clearly a new, innovative, Russian response to the demands of the political war it is waging and it also appears that we have not yet found a sufficiently adequate response to this and other associated phenomena.
Therefore we can be sure of one thing.
More of these groups will soon appear and probably in more than one theater for they are visibly regarded in Moscow as a useful instrument by which to advance Russian national interests in Moscow’s unending war against the West.
The featured photo shows a mercenary from the Wagner Group and is credited to Yury Ebel / Vkontakte.
In an article by Mitch Shaw of the Standard-Examiner, the role of 3-D printing in support of F-35s at Hill Air Force Base was highlighted.
HILL AIR FORCE BASE — The F-35 is known as a “next generation” fighter jet, so it only makes sense its parts be made through an innovative, modern approach.
Hill Air Force Base‘s 388th Maintenance Group has recently started manufacturing certain F-35 replacement parts with a 3D printer. Base officials hope the new method will increase availability and drive down costs for the components.
“We’re always driving for speed, safety and quality,” said 388th MG commander Col. Michael Miles. “But cost-effectiveness is also a priority. This new tech has great cost-avoidance potential and provides rapid repair capabilities.”
Operating off of an electronic data source, 3D printers are controlled by a computer and put down layers of material like gypsum and plastic to create objects of nearly any shape. The technology has an almost endless spectrum of application.
Tech. Sgt. Scott Mathews, assistant manager of the 388th MG’s Air Force Repair and Enhancement Program, said when his shop receives damaged parts that can be reproduced by the 3D printer, early returns are indeed showing maintainers can get them back to the supply chain faster and for less money.
“It’s much more cost effective for the Air Force than buying new parts,” he said.
So far, the team has been reproducing simple plastic parts like wiring harnesses, grommets, fasteners, housing boxes and cable splitters. The process is still in its infancy and the airmen in the unit have been refining the operation through trial and error — making their own in-house designs generated with computer software.
Mathews said in many areas, his shop is “getting away from a lot of fancy metals and getting into composites and plastics” — a reality that’s made 3D printing more workable.
But there’s been positive signs that even more complex parts, requiring sturdier material, could one day be manufactured in-house.
“There’s one printer (where) you can print with aluminum,” Mathews said. “That opens up a whole new world of opportunities. When you look at all of the different parts we could manufacture … it just boggles the mind, the things we could (make) on base. It’s just insane.”
Hill received its first two F-35s in September 2015. By the end of 2019, the base will house three fighter squadrons made up of 78 jets. The active duty 388th Fighter Wing and the reserve 419th fly and maintain the jets.
The base’s Ogden Air Logistics Complex performs maintenance on all of the U.S. Air Force F-35s.
One advantage of the F-35 global enterprise is that learning from one partner or in the case of the US, one service, can provide inputs to others in the global enterprise.
Given who is flying the F-35, this means that very advanced airpower are enhancing their capabilities through a built-in process of cross learning.
This is very significant indeed.
With regard to the US Navy, Edward Timperlake suggested that cross learning from the USAF to the sea services could provide a significant opportunity to leverage the sea base where parts could be manufactured afloat, which would provide a significant step forward with regard to aircraft availability.
The weight and cube of prepackaged parts and supply consumables for Ships at sea is always of concern for all Carriers and surface combatants at sea.
I hope the sea services learns fast from AF innovation and F-35 B/C is a perfect “ proof of concept” opportunity with regard to cross learning.
Imagine the USN supply ships just cross decking essentially raw material.
The sea base is being redefined with a redrafting of the amphibious task force and associated working relationships with other air, surface and subsurface assets.
What 3D Printing once further advances are made can do is allow various elements of a sea based force to better sustain combat capabilities afloat without having to have organic original replacement parts aboard, or to be able to supplement short supplies on demand.
This means that for an airborne force at sea that the readiness rates can go up along with seabased availability
When we visited the USS America, one of the key takeaways was how the ship was built to facilitate air operations and maintenance for the air systems.
The ship has three decks and certainly the bottom deck has a number of work areas where 3D printing could easily be done and to support maritime air forces.
As the ship will be a regular operational center for Ospreys, for example, Osprey parts might be manufactured for the US Navy with its Ospreys operating now in the supply role.
What this means as well is that 3D Printing supporting USMC F-35Bs could be available to support other F-35Bs users in the area of operation where the Marines are operating, or in turn, to work with ashore facilities.
It is yet another area where, for example, the Queen Elizabeth and the USS America could work together to sustain airpower afloat.
The featured photo shows Tech Sgt. Scott Mathews, assistant manager of the 388th Maintenance Group’s Air Force Repair and Enhancement program, makes adjustments to a 3-D printer the unit is experimenting with to create pieces and parts faster and more cost-effectively. Photo by Todd Cromar.
For an overview on the changes and a video which explains them for KSL TV, see the following:
As part of the streamlining of government and reduction of over regulation, the Trump Administration Department of Commerce is taking a lead role in the space policy reform championed by the President.
According to an article by Jeff Foust published by Space News on May 27, 2018, the new approach was discussed:
With the signing of a new presidential directive calling for commercial space regulatory reform, the Commerce Department has released new details about its plans to create a “one-stop shop” for such issues.
In a statement issued after the May 24 signing of Space Policy Directive 2, the department said it plans to combine several existing offices into a new office called the Space Policy Advancing Commercial Enterprise (SPACE) Administration.
The SPACE Administration, the department said, will incorporate the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs office and the Office of Space Commerce, currently part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The department was already planning such a consolidation of the offices, which would be moved out of NOAA and directly under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
Ross has also directed Commerce Department agencies that deal with space in one fashion or another to assign a liaison to the new office. Those offices include the Bureau of Industry and Security, International Trade Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NOAA and National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Recently, Secretary Ross and Congressman Smith gave keynote addresses in front of a meeting at the Hudson Institute and these were then followed by a panel discussion with senior government officials responsible for executing the reform agenda laid out by the Trump Administration.
Maintaining U.S. leadership in the face of global competition warrants a reevaluation of the U.S. political and legal landscape governing space. On July 24, 2018, the Hudson Institute hosted a session where Secretary Wilbur Ross and House Science, and the Space, & Technology House Committee Chairman Lamar Smith discussed the Department of Commerce’s evolving role in the space sector.
The web of national, regional and international institutions—organized to guide and serve an industry undergoing dramatic transformation—needs to be updated.
Rising to meet this challenge, Congress and the Executive Branch have been working together to reshape the legal environment for the commercial use of outer space.
The address by Secretary Ross can be seen in the following video:
And the discussion with Secretary Ross is provided below as well:
From the perspective of these two leaders, one leading a major cabinet department and the other chairing a key committee, it is clear that the Trump Administration is working reform of the government to facilitate innovation in the private sector, and in this case it is the space business.
Commerce Secretary Ross’s perspective was highlighted in an by Brandt Pasco Esquire and Attorney Pasco:
Today we have about 1500 functioning satellites on orbit. Within the next few years, there are active plans on the books for ten times that many.
There is a lot of concern that with existing U.S. regulatory processes, there is no path that gets us from A to B.
There is a huge amount of private equity flooding into this sector, and the potential for space to revolutionize many aspects of life here on earth is tremendous, but if the U.S. regulatory pipe cannot handle the flow many of these companies will move offshore and others will fail. Both should be absolutely unacceptable.
Under the UN Space Treaty, the normal rule is whoever launches it, regulates it. The U.S. government should be pushing to ensure these are U.S. networks, subject to U.S. law.
Moreover, the regulatory process has to be friendly enough that business doesn’t forum shop.
If our regulatory process makes companies prefer investing offshore to investing in the United States, something is profoundly wrong.
The Administration gets this, and is pushing to reform the U.S. regulatory system to make it the preferred destination for space related investment.
And for one former Commerce official the changes being undertaken under Secretary Ross and generated by President Trump and key ones.
According to a discussion with John A. Shaw, chief operating officer of the Commerce Department from 1988 to 1992, after the Ross speech, this official underscored how he saw the changes;
The promise of Commerce’s potential to become a Department of International Trade, Industry, and Commerce (DITIC) had remained unfulfilled because of the number of overlapping congressional fiefs involved in the trade arena. It remained a political mirage because no administration had the will to spend its political capital to make it real.
President Trump is the first president whose holistic approach to international trade and willingness to slay sacred cows has created an opportunity to transform Commerce into the trade juggernaut its Chinese counterpart, CITIC, is.
Commerce already has a first rate combination of agencies to serve as the real hub of US international trade. It already provides the essential staffing needed for USTR, oversees all dual use licensing for US technology transfer, generates the best trade statistics in the USG, and develops the key economic intelligence on trade for the US intelligence community.
In NTIA it has the nexus to address international telecommunications issues, and in NIST to address standards in every sector internationally.
It has always taken the lead in space commerce via its role in the White House Space Council using the resources of NOAA.
The Patent and Trademark Office is the world leader in IP issues and the Census Bureau provides the most reliable index we have to the changing realities of our domestic market.
Incorporating USTR, the SBA, and a few other outlier agencies into Commerce and streamlining its ties to the Export-Import Bank could finally bring US international trade in the 21st century to the commanding and coordinated position the country deserves.
With the Second Quarter GDP just announced at a very impressive 4.1%, this recent upsurge in US economic growth is due in part to the efforts to shape a less intrusive government and relief from over regulation.
And clearly Secretary Ross and the reforms at the Department of Commerce are part of shaping a more effective governmental role in working with the private sector.
Appendix:
The remarks by Representative Lamar Smith were released by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technolgy on July 24, 2018:
Thanks to the Hudson Institute and Ken Weinstein for inviting me to be here.
A generation ago, space was largely an unexplored frontier. Few would have imagined a world of reusable private space rockets, global telecommunications and remote sensing, private space stations, celestial resource prospecting, or on-orbit manufacturing.
A highly dynamic international security environment has changed space from a sanctuary to a congested and contested domain. At the same time, the private sector is opening up new frontiers and taking an increasingly important role in outer space.
New technologies and novel strategies are lowering the costs of access to space. The standardization of space technologies and satellite platforms enable a robust human presence in the sky above us.
New entrants, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic, along with companies with a long heritage like Lockheed and Boeing, are investing significant capital in space exploration. Private equity is funding a new era of innovation that is changing the economics of space activities. With this evolution comes new challenges.
The Outer Space Treaty was developed in 1967 to establish a framework for international space law. Among other provisions, the Outer Space Treaty requires national governments to be responsible for all space activities carried out by their nation, whether the missions are led by government or private companies.
American space operators have long faced uncertainty about which federal agency has responsibility for approving non-traditional space initiatives and ensuring compliance with the Outer Space Treaty.
In some instances, this uncertainty has constrained capital formation, driving American companies overseas. With increased commercial activity in space, this uncertainty is becoming a larger problem.
Outdated and cumbersome regulations continue to hinder innovation by companies that focus on launch, remote sensing, and non-traditional space technologies.
Those are some of the challenges we face. But there are solutions. Continued U.S. leadership in outer space requires us to maximize and integrate the strengths of all three groups of stakeholders: military, government research, and commercial. This will result in a new concept of national power in outer space.
We must use the energy of a vibrant private sector and create laws and policies that bring all three communities together, working towards a common end: American leadership in space.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is contributing to this effort. Two of our bills this year established the United States as the jurisdiction of choice for private space activities.
The first bill, the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act, provides a legal and policy framework that simplifies the space-based remote sensing regulatory system, enhances compliance with international obligations, improves national security and removes regulatory barriers facing innovative space operators.
The need for this legislation became clear during the previous Administration when serious uncertainty arose after U.S. space exploration companies sought payload approval from the Department of Transportation for non-traditional space activities.
But the DOT payload approval process is only designed to prevent the launch of payloads that jeopardize American interests and safety. It does not provide for the authorization and supervision of in-space activities, as required by the Outer Space Treaty.
So the Executive Branch has been unable to assure the private sector that new and innovative space missions would be approved for launch.
Another important aspect of the bill is updating space-based remote sensing regulations. Hundreds of private remote sensing satellites orbit the Earth today, and we all rely on these satellites for accurate mapping, enhanced agriculture, and improved weather forecasts.
But existing law governing the licensing of space-based remote sensing was enacted in 1992 at a time when there were no private remote sensing satellites.
The law put the burden on the applicant to justify its operations. This is stifling private innovation and putting U.S. industry at a disadvantage.
Our bill fixes this broken system by providing a streamlined licensing process aimed towards approval, not denial.
This legislation will spur investment and innovation, which will create new high-paying, high-value jobs across the country. It increases American competitiveness and attracts companies, talents, and money that would otherwise go to other countries.
The bill also consolidates regulatory authorities into one federal agency: the Secretary of Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce. The result is a single decision point for the authorization of activities in outer space.
In short, the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act ensures the U.S. and its workforce will benefit from the new space-economy.
The second Science Committee bill, the American Space SAFE Management Act, establishes a space traffic management framework built on science and technology, space situational awareness, and space traffic coordination.
Today, there are eleven hundred active satellites in orbit. In a few years, there will be tens of thousands. A variety of new spacecraft soon will go into operation. They could include private space stations, on-orbit repair and refueling satellites, and celestial resource prospectors.
This Act directs the Administration to coordinate its Federal research and development investments in space traffic management.
It directs the Administration to work collaboratively with the private sector and establishes a NASA Center of Excellence that will develop, lead, and promote research in space traffic management.
This bill also creates a civil space situational awareness (SSA) program within the Department of Commerce. Commerce will provide a basic level of SSA information and services, free of charge, to the public.
While the Department of Defense retains the information gathering resources currently used to compile the catalog of space objects, Commerce will augment that with data from other sources, including the private sector and foreign partners.
And the Act establishes a space traffic management framework. This framework consists of voluntary guidelines developed by the government, standards developed by industry, and a pilot space traffic coordination program.
The pilot program allows the government and stakeholders to experiment and develop best practices to manage space traffic.
It is a common-sense first step in what will be a long-term process of creating a comprehensive space traffic management framework.
Both of these bills direct the Department of Commerce to be responsible for carrying out the supervision of space activities.
The reason for that is simple: because of its longstanding mission and agency culture, the Commerce Department is best equipped to help entrepreneurs and innovators build companies and succeed in business.
Many of the bills’ goals have been included in President Trump’s Space Policy Directives. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced a major reorganization of his Department that reflects our bills’ provisions.
To ensure success, Secretary Ross is putting people, money, and expertise into a new Space Policy Advancing Commercial Enterprise (SPACE) Administration and a restructured Office of Space Commerce.
We should thank the president, the vice president, and Secretary Ross for carrying out this reorganization.
The momentum is building for these bills and the last step before becoming law is approval by the U.S. Senate. We need champions there to get these bills through committee and on to the Senate floor.
Farsighted and determined policymakers and scientists led the charge for the first wave of space exploration.
Now it is our responsibility to expand our leadership in space, working together with visionaries like Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk.
The history of space exploration will feature this bipartisan, bicameral bill as having invigorated the next space age and maintained America’s leadership in space.
America is the prominent actor on the global stage of outer space. We have the responsibility and the expertise to guide the world toward a peaceable, prosperous, and safe space environment. But we need to act, and act now.
The featured photo is of Secretary Ross at the Hudson Institute meeting and is credited to Ed Timperlake.
