Back to news

February 2, 2021 | International, Aerospace

Opinion: The Innovation That Will Ensure U.S. Security In Space

Charles Beames

During the Cold War, it was not the U.S.' superior weapons or soldiers that ultimately led to the Soviet Union's capitulation. Historians record that the relative economic might of the U.S. ultimately brought the Cold War to a peaceful and conclusive end. Three decades later, the U.S. again finds itself at the dawn of what many have dubbed the “Second Space Race,” for which the U.S. ought to remain mindful of this lesson, lest it be used against us.

The West is once again threatened by a hegemonic national security rival. This time, America's archnemesis is characterized by planning for a long contest that will feature fast-forward economics, global diplomacy, military muscle and information manipulation: China, it appears, is preparing to use its economic power to win. While maintaining its deep belief in Marx's communist vision, the Chinese one-party government has fashioned a national economy that learned from the Soviet Union's mistakes. Through friendly engagement with Western economies, China strengthens its own economy and weakens the West's, nudging the world toward the worldview of the Chinese Communist Party.

What then, are the best avenues for the U.S. to win this new near-peer space competition? They are the same ones that delivered victory in the last century: free markets, real economic growth and the productivity that often follows. This time, however, we must keep in mind that our rival is a keen student that has learned from our earlier successes—and Soviet failures.

The American response must not repeat the Cold War strategy of outspending our rival in government programs. Instead, the U.S. long game must put the commercial industry first: deliberately buy goods and services from our commercial domestic market, only providing government solutions when the commercial market cannot meet requirements. Unlike other military services, there are no real “weapons” in space. Much of what the government is developing for civil and national security space needs also exists as products or services in the commercial market. By encouraging the commercial industry to grow and not competing against it, the U.S. will secure a long-term strategy leading to unrivaled space leadership.

The U.S. economy has generated growth and prosperity unmatched in human history, with billions of dollars being invested every year into profitable commercial space companies. To outpace China militarily and economically, the new administration must double down on space privatization projects like NASA's Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Programs started under the Obama administration. The Trump administration correctly reprioritized the importance of space for national security, but it directed too much government spending to legacy space projects and fell short in encouraging the next generation of commercial space companies.

An American “commercial first” policy for space technologies can solve government needs at the federal and state levels, which account for about half of commercial space company revenue. By prioritizing the highly competitive commercial sector, the government will bolster U.S. competitiveness without illegally subsidizing it. More important, it would reinforce the American values of free markets and open competition.

As the new administration settles in, national security political insiders are already hedging their bets on who and what will be the winners and losers of the new political cycle. This is especially true for the space sector, not only because it was an area of significant emphasis during the last administration but also because there continues to be significant private investment and anticipated growth in the area.

The unrelenting march of the knowledge economy and remarkable utility of the commercial space industry is limited only to our imaginations. The new U.S. Space Force and other civil space agencies will be better positioned if they leverage the burgeoning industry and do not overshadow it with government alternatives. If, however, the government decides to compete against the private sector with its top-down directed design methods and protocols, our commercial industry will be lost to China, much like the drone market was just a decade ago.

Economic dominance in the space industry, not space weapons, will ultimately decide which side defines the 21st-century space domain and the national security implications that come with it. America must strategically rethink policies that will take advantage of, rather than compete against, its blossoming commercial space industry. Getting space policy right—commercial industry first and using government solutions only when necessary—will lead to explosive growth. Getting policy wrong? Well, just ask the Soviets.

Charles Beams is executive chairman and chief strategy officer of Colorado-based York Space Systems and chairman of the SmallSat Alliance.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/opinion-innovation-will-ensure-us-security-space

On the same subject

  • « Notre objectif est de garder les startups en France » : entretien avec Emmanuel Chiva, directeur de l’Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID)

    November 24, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    « Notre objectif est de garder les startups en France » : entretien avec Emmanuel Chiva, directeur de l’Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID)

    DÉFENSE « Notre objectif est de garder les startups en France » : entretien avec Emmanuel Chiva, directeur de l'Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID) Emmanuel Chiva, directeur de l'Agence de l'Innovation de Défense (AID), accorde un entretien à La Tribune. Il esquisse un bilan de l'activité de l'agence, trois ans après sa création, à la veille du Forum Innovation Défense (FID) qui se tiendra à Paris du 25 au 27 novembre. Plus de 110 projets futuristes seront présentés. « Nous les avons classés en cinq quartiers : gagner la guerre avant la guerre ; accompagner les armées gr'ce au soutien ; innover pour transformer le ministère ; anticiper les ruptures technologiques et, enfin, fédérer l'écosystème autour de l'innovation de défense », précise Emmanuel Chiva. Il se félicite de l'émergence d'une filière startup dans la défense. « Les grands maîtres d'œuvre, MBDA, Thales, Naval Group, Nexter, Arquus... se sont réorganisés pour coller au plus près de nos objectifs en matière d'innovation ouverte et de coopérations avec les startups », souligne-t-il. Il évoque également, entre autres, le projet Centurion, contrat-cadre confié à Safran et Thales, qui peut intégrer des startups, et salue le programme Helma-P développé par CILAS, « extrêmement spectaculaire, qui développe une arme laser pour neutraliser des drones et des systèmes d'observation ». La Tribune du 24 novembre

  • US Army’s Future Vertical Lift program will transform industry, so we must get it right

    July 9, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    US Army’s Future Vertical Lift program will transform industry, so we must get it right

    By: Andrew Hunter and Rhys McCormick It is rare when technological innovation delivers change that fundamentally reshapes military operations. Helicopters made one of these rare breakthroughs after World War II. The ability to support land operations with vertical lift aircraft fundamentally changed how militaries moved on the battlefield. However, the shape of military operations supported by today's helicopters reflect their capabilities and limitations in terms of speed, range and lift capacity. The Army's Future Vertical Lift efforts are designed to reshape military operations by surpassing the limits imposed by today's systems. It is less commonly appreciated, however, that future vertical lift, or FVL, aircraft may do just as much to reshape the vertical lift industry as they do military operations. To deliver the capabilities FVL requires affordably — in development, production and sustainment — industry will have to leverage new design and production techniques that deliver critical components with high quality and moderate cost. Key parts such as rotor blades and rotor heads are big cost drivers. Designing these parts for FVL means redesigning the supply chains and manufacturing processes that produce them. For the smaller companies that make up the lower tiers of the supply chain, this will require them to fundamentally change how their production process works. We recently completed a study that looked at the implications of the Army's Future Vertical Lift project for the industrial base. What became clear in this review is that there are both opportunities and risks in making the transition to FVL. Substantial investment is required by both the Army and industry, and not everyone in industry will make it. However, this transition also offers significant opportunities to leverage emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, robotics, artificial intelligence, digital twins and data analytics to achieve the Army's objectives. The Army's management will be key in ensuring that industry is able to get the most out of new design and production methods, reconfigured supply chains, and a reshaped workforce. The Army's key tools for managing the transition include its ability to provide an addressable market for the industrial base that attracts the necessary FVL investment, and its ability to align industry incentives with the Army's core goals. The addressable market for industry is not just the Army's future programs, but also the sustainment of legacy platforms. For much of the supply chain, the sustainment market is a huge part of their bottom line. The Army's total vertical lift-addressable market for industry is roughly $8-10 billion annually over the next decade. Although there are some concerns whether that level of spending is feasible while procuring two vertical lift programs simultaneously, previous research by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that future attack reconnaissance aircraft and future long-range assault aircraft can be accommodated at historical Army modernization funding levels. Of that $8-10 billion annual vertical lift spending, operating and support costs will provide the largest share, while research and development as well as acquisition total a little more than $2 billion annually. Given the size of the addressable market, the biggest challenges and risks in transitioning to a new vertical lift industrial base are not among the big prime contractors, but among the smaller suppliers in the industrial base who can't be sure that investing in FVL today will generate the necessary returns tomorrow. Unlike the bigger prime contractors, these lower-tier suppliers have a much different risk appetite and may struggle with making the upfront investments to build components in new ways. Supporting the supply chain in making this transition is critical to meeting the Army's cost and schedule objectives, which highlights how important incentives are in the Army's approach. The Army's biggest incentive to industry is to provide predictability by keeping FVL program requirements consistent and clear through the development process so that industry can plan and invest. To date, the Army has done this. It should continue to do so. Additionally, the Army can incentivize industry to make upfront investments now that deliver cost savings later. Given that sustainment costs account for 68 percent of rotary-wing costs, these investments are critical. Furthermore, it is in the Army's interest to sustain competition throughout the development process as it moves closer to picking winners. Competition is the strongest incentive for industry. Finally, the Army should be cognizant that incentives will change as FVL moves from development to production, and its management approach will need to evolve. The Army has the key ingredients in place for FVL if it successfully guides the industrial base through this transition. While that is a tall order, our analysis of the Army's FVL plans suggests they begin on solid ground and are well-informed by the technological and affordability realities. One final factor in FVL's success will be sustaining congressional support by being clear and consistent in communicating and executing the Army's plans. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/07/us-armys-future-vertical-lift-program-will-transform-industry-so-we-must-get-it-right/

  • Is a light attack aircraft coming to the Corps?

    June 11, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Is a light attack aircraft coming to the Corps?

    By: Shawn Snow The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to dish out millions for a Marine light attack aircraft and the Corps' futuristic sea drone, known as the MUX. The committee voted 25-2 on May 24 to give $100 million for a Marine light attack aircraft and $100 million for the MUX sea drone in its markup of the fiscal year 2019 annual defense legislation. The Air Force is still in pursuit of a light attack aircraft. Two aircraft, Textron Aviation's AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano, are currently undergoing three months of demonstrations, which kicked off in May at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. So, what will the Corps choose? “The Marine Corps is monitoring the Air Force-led Light Attack Experiment to procure a cost-effective, observation and attack (OA-X) air platform for employment in permissive environments, with the intent to employ such an asset as a joint force capability,” Marine spokesman Capt. Christopher Harrison told Marine Corps Times in an email. “The SASC's decision to authorize $100 million for a light attack platform is only reflected in a policy bill ― nothing has been appropriated to this program yet.” Light attack aircraft are seen as a cost-effective means to deliver close-air support in more permissive environments like Iraq and Afghanistan. The A-29 Super Tucano is already fielded by the Afghan air force. Military officials in the past have come under criticism for using expensive aircraft to destroy low key targets. For instance, on Nov. 20, 2017, an F-22 Raptor was used for the first time in Afghanistan, to destroy a narcotics lab. Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said the F-22 was selected because of its ability to carry the small diameter bomb. As for the MUX, the Corps submitted a request for information in March that spelled out some details the Marine Corps wants in its new futuristic drone. The Corps is looking for a drone to compliment the long distances of some of its other aircraft like the MV-22. According to the March RFI, the Marines want the MUX to be able to fly 700 nautical miles and carry a 9,500-pound payload. The Corps wants its future sea drone to have strike capabilities, surveillance and electronic warfare. Military.com first reported that the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to give $100 million for a Marine light attack aircraft. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/06/04/is-a-light-attack-aircraft-coming-to-the-corps/

All news