Q&A: Lieutenant General Larry D. James
Written by Marty Kauchak
MSMF 2009 Volume: 2 Issue: 6 (November/December)
Controlling and Exploiting Space for
Global and Theater Operations
Lieutanant General Larry D. James
Commander
14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic),
Air Force Space Command Commander,
Joint Functional Component Command
for Space U.S. Strategic Command
James entered the Air Force as a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1978. His career has spanned a wide variety of operations and acquisition assignments, including space shuttle payload specialist, Air Staff program element monitor, Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite program manager and chief of operations, 14th Air Force.
James has commanded at the squadron, group and wing levels, and was vice commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center. He has served on the staffs of Headquarters U.S. Air Force, U.S. Space Command and Air Force Space Command. He also served as the senior space officer for Operation Iraqi Freedom at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia. Prior to his current assignment, the general was vice commander, 5th Air Force, and deputy commander, 13th Air Force, Yokota Air Base, Japan.
James was interviewed by Marty Kauchak, MSMF editor during the Space and Missile Defense Conference, Huntsville.
Q: Will the warfighter have persistent, quality GPS service in the near-future? Please explain the efforts being made to prevent interruptions and degradations in future GPS service to the warfighter.
A: Absolutely. The Air Force has proved to be a good steward of GPS. We have operated GPS for years. The fundamental requirement for a constellation is 24 satellites. We currently maintain 33 with some onorbit residual satellites, so we have a significant capability to maintain the appropriate constellation. We just launched our last GPS Block IIR [satellite] August 18—very successfully. We are looking to launch the next generation early next year. So, in terms of managing the constellation and ensuring the warfighter gets what he needs, there is no doubt in my mind in the capability to do that, and we intend to continually provide that support.
With respect to your follow-up question, number one is maintaining the constellation, and we will continue to do that. Number two is bringing on new capabilities for the future, whether it’s the M-code, which is a more secure code; higher power capabilities that we are adding; or spot-beam capabilities that we are looking at for the future—all of those things address the warfighters’ future needs.
Q: Describe the technology gaps that preclude your operators from providing more effective surveillance, tracking and intelligence of man-made objects in space? As a follow-up, please discuss initiatives that are allowing your operators to more accurately locate, track and report these objects.
A: I think we set the world standard in terms of doing this today. We are good at what we do, but we can always do it better. One of the areas as I mentioned this morning [during SMDC presentation] was the lack of southern hemispheric coverage with some of our space surveillance assets—we don’t have a lot of capacity down there so we are working with some of our allies to get radar capacity in the southern hemisphere.
Q: Can you disclose the allies with whom we are working?
A: That’s still a work in progress, so I’d rather not. However, I want people to understand it is being worked.
I also mentioned the Space Fence, which is funded and will be coming on line in the out-years. We are looking potentially at up to three worldwide locations, which will also not only improve our global coverage but will improve our ability to track multiple and increased numbers of objects. Because it’s a “fence,” as objects fly through its coverage, we will collect observations and be able to track that same object by other radars.
The Space Based Surveillance System [first satellite launch planned for late 2009 or early 2010] will also give us a more accurate and persistent geosynchronous tracking capability.
Another piece of that capability is bringing in more ground-based systems. I talked about the advanced concept technology development effort to look at radars that weren’t part of the space surveillance network and asked, “Can we use that data as well?” The answer is yes. The more ground-based sensors we can bring in and feed in their data, the better we’ll be. That is the path we are moving down.
Q: Your space professionals operate the Space-Based Infrared System. Explain the new capabilities provided by the first nextgeneration SBIRS satellites [Highly Elliptical Orbit] since they entered operational service.
A: The legacy system, the DSP [Defense Support Program], was designed back in the 1960s and ’70s. It’s a rotating IR array that gives you points of light every few seconds that you track a missile. We’ve launched the SBIRS HEO system over the last several years. HEO 2 has completed its operational acceptance. We have two HEO satellites in orbit. It’s a much better-quality IR sensor, if you will, that gives us a much higher fidelity capability in terms of detecting IR events—not only missiles, but also other lower intensity IR events. It’s extremely capable and will be even better once we get the GEO systems up there in the future. It will give us the persistence to monitor from geosynchronous capabilities versus the highly elliptical orbit.
Q: How do your forces provide Operationally Responsive Space capabilities? Discuss the expanded ORS capabilities your teams will provide the warfighter in the near-future.
A: We’re in the middle of the concept of operations [CONOPS] development for how we will support ORS. Up to this point, it’s been looked at as an experimental system: Can we get assets up; what capabilities can we provide to the warfighter; etc. As we bring ORS-1 on line, which is directly supporting USCENTCOM, the question then is, “How do we operationally control this?” Even though it is directly supporting CENTCOM, and that’s the mission it needs to have, it’s not always flying over CENTCOM—it’s a global asset. We’re looking at the operational command and control for that system. If it’s flying over PACOM, do we look at capabilities to support PACOM? That’s what we’re involved in—the global look at those ORS-type systems for command and control. We’re developing the CONOPS as we speak.
Q: Your satellite operators deliver force-multiplying effects including low vulnerability. Briefly explain how U.S. military satellites remain vulnerable in orbit and the efforts being made to increase their on-station safety and operation.
A: We’ve invested a lot of intellectual capital and money in the Space Protection Program—which is a joint effort between Air Force Space Command and National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]—to assess what are the needs for space protection and what is the best way to ensure that our assets are reliable and will be there when we need them.
We’re looking at design requirements for future systems. As Space and Missile Systems Command builds systems and as NRO builds systems, we are looking at the highest probability of threat and how do you mitigate that. All of those things are ongoing at the four-star level.
Q: Describe new initiatives or programs that are enabling 14th Air Force’s team members to train as they will operate—with joint and combined forces.
A: This gets into our job as Joint Functional Component Command for Space. That is a joint organization, and we run the Joint Space Operations Center, a joint Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine organization with coalition partners on the operations floor 24/7. That’s the way we do business today. I mentioned the Schriever V Wargame. A lot of coalition play there—and as we look to the next Schriever wargame [X in 2010], we’ll also look to continue involving our coalition partners. We’ll continue to address how we do these operations in the future and what’s the path we need to be on.
We also brought in commercial representatives into the Schreiver V Wargame. There was a lot of learning, both on the government side and on the commercial side, to the extent that one of the recommendations was, “How do you bring a commercial representation into the existing JSpOC today?” We’re thinking about that because there are some questions about, “Who is that commercial representative?” There are a lot of commercial entities out there, so how do you manage all of that and who comes in to do that.
Q: A help-needed message for industry. Looking across the systems operated and supported by your teams, discuss the top three technology innovations needed to increase those systems’ operational effectiveness and efficiency.
A: We have to go back to our priorities. Number one is supporting the warfighter. How do we make sure we are fully integrated with what is going on in theater; how do we bring that data forward; how do we create the processes to develop courses of action that support the warfighter; how do we bring that data into the operations center at Vandenberg Air Force Base? The technologies, the software and the systems that allow us to have that very clear view of the combatant commanders’ intent and their operations and how space brings a capability there [is important].
Number two is along the same lines but is integrating all of these systems, all of these different data streams and creating the operational picture that senior warfighters can use to make decisions— that is really important.
The third is the intelligence world. How do we go out there and get the intelligence we need on space systems? That can potentially be very difficult to get when you are talking about objects at 22,000 miles [above the Earth]. ♦