
House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps - petethomas
https://federalnewsradio.com/defense-news/2017/06/house-panel-votes-to-split-air-force-create-new-u-s-space-corps/
======
Animats
Sounds like somebody at USAF Space Command wants a promotion.

This seems decades late. The USAF has no manned space capability. The U.S.
Government once owned the Space Shuttles. They had astronauts. The USAF once
had a Space School. That's all gone. Now, they just buy commercial rocket
launches.

If anything, the reorganization the USAF needs is to lose the close air
support mission, and the A-10 Warthogs, to the Army. The USAF keeps trying to
kill off the Warthog, and doesn't want to get involved with smaller fixed-wing
aircraft for close air support. The Army needs that low-level aerial
firepower. They need it from affordable aircraft they can use in quantity, not
rare, overpriced F-35s. There's an old deal between the Army and the USAF, the
"Key West Agreement", that the Army would stay out of fixed-wing aviation and
only use helicopters. That needs to be looked at again.

(The Marines have their own air, and it works out well for them. Marine air
and ground forces tend to coordinate better than USAF/Army combos.)

~~~
vosper
I imagine that the not-too-distant future of close air support is drones with
guns and rockets. These could potentially be operated by soldiers on or near
the front lines. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine a soldier with a
tablet tapping on things for the drone to shoot at.

Not needing a pilot could make them smaller, cheaper, and able to enter (and
remain in) dangerous areas in a way a helicopter or plane never could.

This seems like something the Army could operate themselves.

~~~
rubyfan
Given the choice between a drone+iPad and an A10 warthog, I'd pick the warthog
all day every day. That said, I doubt it's an either or thing.

------
dmichulke
_... because we have to defend the ehh hmmm satellites against cough ehm ehhh
other satellites._

Nothing like a fourth branch of the armed forces to increase the biggest
military budget in the world [1] by another few dozen percent.

[1] From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

    
    
      1. US     611 bn
      2. China  215 bn
      3. Russia  69 bn

~~~
codyb
Aren't those all about the same as a percentage of gdp?

~~~
MaulingMonkey
From the same table:

    
    
      1. US     611 bn (3.3% of GDP)
      2. China  215 bn (1.9% of GDP)
      3. Russia  69 bn (5.3% of GDP)

------
Overtonwindow
This is a fall in line bill. In my office on Capitol Hill that was our name
for legislation that leadership has agreed to, is all ready to go, and there's
little to argue that will go anywhere so...just fall in line. Interesting
footnote to history: The Republican leadership, from 94 - 06, steamrolled over
everyone with legislation. When the Democrats took over from 2006 - 2010, they
turned the tides and began ramming bills through without giving much, if any,
time to read and analyze. A Republican pledge after they won big in 2010 was
to mandate posting of a bill to the web three days prior to debate on the
Floor, and other "time to read" ideas. I guess we've come full circle to
Republicans preventing Democrats from reading. I'm afraid to see what the
Democrats do when they eventually take over; the cycle of things.

------
gumby
Why, in this day and age, is the US military organized along a structure
(Army, Navy/Marines) based on the Elizabethan English military organization (I
recognize the USAF was spilt off to avoid a battle between Army and Navy)? For
that matter why are dress uniforms based on obsolete English gentlemen's
dress?

A bit of rethink based on objective/mission seems well overdue. The 1940s
reorganization that lead to the Department of Defense papered over the
structural problems.

~~~
dctoedt
> _For that matter why are dress uniforms based on obsolete English gentlemen
> 's dress?_

This is getting way off topic, but can you give an example? The Navy officer
service-dress blue uniform is basically a business suit with gold-colored
buttons and gold sleeve stripes; it's been pretty much the same for probably a
century now. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_United_States_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_United_States_Navy#Dress_uniforms)

~~~
gumby
Indeed, service dress and full dress are essentially frozen in the same time
as the business suit. Essentially we are still under the influence of the
Prince Regent's buddy Beau Brummell. At least the necktie ("cravat") has an
actual military origin. But the split into three dress uniforms still apes
ancient sumptuary laws and the (thankfully obsoleted) structure of officers
coming from the noble and gentle classes and the infantry/sergeants from the
lower classes.

Then again the whole white wedding / white (instead of seed) cake weddings
come from Victoria.

But it cracks me up to see, say, North Korean generals in uniforms that really
just look like Regency clothing!

------
ChuckMcM
OK, now I _totally_ want to go to what ever academy they open up for this
branch and officially become a Space Cadet! :-)

More seriously, this isn't much different that the Army Air Corps becoming the
Air Force, logistically it opens up a branch that can have strategies and
priorities that are not constrained by its original branch (the original Air
Corps was constantly arguing with the Army over what was more important, tanks
or airplanes, for example). It also opens up a bunch of jokes for late night
comedians like "Look, it is a new customer for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter,
now its required to operate in a vacuum!"

------
neuronexmachina
Looks like the Senate is in disagreement with the House on this:

[https://www.govconwire.com/2017/06/despite-disagreement-
hous...](https://www.govconwire.com/2017/06/despite-disagreement-house-moves-
forward-on-creation-of-u-s-space-corps/)

> The Senate Armed Services Committee isn’t calling for a Space Force in its
> version of the NDAA; and is instead stressing the importance of cyber
> warfare and a more conservative approach to spending.

------
Macsenour
Meetings and sub-committee hearings on Space Command... but no time for the
same on healthcare... Not trying to start a discussion, just noting the irony.

~~~
Turing_Machine
National defense is a constitutionally mandated function of the federal
government.

"Healthcare" is not.

------
Analemma_
This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps"
_eventually_ , but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy,
instead of being able to leverage the manpower of an existing service, seems
unhelpful. Making the Air Force its own thing, instead of part of the Army,
was a good decision in 1945 but would've been dumb in 1912 too.

~~~
gorkonsine
Actually, I think they should go the opposite way: they should eliminate the
Air Force, and make it part of the Army again. The AF was split off because of
the Cold War, and is just a relic of that time. No other modern military force
has a separate "air force", because having it separate only complicates things
when conducting a conventional ground war. For a while the Air Force even
thought they were going to make the Navy obsolete, because they wanted to rely
on ICBMs and long-range bombers for everything.

~~~
tomjakubowski
> No other modern military force has a separate "air force", because having it
> separate only complicates things when conducting a conventional ground war.

Besides the US: Turkey, Syria, Russia, Israel all off the top of my head have
air force and ground army (along with, at least, a navy) separate under one
"Armed Forces" command.

What modern air forces operate as part of the army, rather than separately (as
most navies do)?

~~~
smacktoward
The big one is China, where all the services are technically branches within
the People's Liberation Army:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army)

~~~
gorkonsine
That really doesn't sound any different than the US, it's just different
naming. In the US, all four services are branches within the "Department of
Defense". So US DOD = China PLA.

To properly compare, you need to look at whether the air force has the same
level of autonomy from the ground army as the navy does. If it does, it's just
like the US. If not, it's not.

------
boznz
SciFi usually base military in space based on the navy, I wonder if this was
considered or even makes a difference?

~~~
dhd415
I'm guessing that the sci-fi practice was due to the sociological similarities
between spacecraft crews and ship crews on isolated, long-term voyages. At
present, the US Air Force has been responsible for most high-tech concerns
including cyber warfare and space warfare, so it probably was the least
organizationally disruptive to bring the new branch in alongside the AF.

~~~
vpribish
plug for project rho! They have some discussion of sci-fi military
organization (and nine thousand other things, seriously, it's the TV Tropes of
sci-fi)

[http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/military.php#id...](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/military.php#id
--Organization)

------
musachenko
Militarization of space notwithstanding, this could be great news for the
spaceflight industry as a whole. A lot more contracts handed out for launches
and orbital infrastructure, as well as "normalizing" space travel would
encourage investment in an industry that has been mostly dominated (and still
is) by government entities.

------
ddrum001
Curious how this would affect private ventures like SpaceX?

~~~
blackguardx
It probably means more money for the space industry and other government
contractors, which includes SpaceX.

------
pavement
Uh... what?!

    
    
      The bill would order the Defense Department to establish the 
      new corps by January 2019. It would be a distinct military 
      service within the Department of the Air Force, in much the 
      same way the Marine Corps operates as a service within the 
      Department of the Navy. The Secretary of the Air Force would 
      oversee both the Air Force and the Space Corps, but the new 
      chief of staff of the Space Corps would be a new four-position, 
      co-equal with the chief of staff of the Air Force. DoD would 
      have to deliver reports to Congress in both March and August 
      of next year on the details of how it plans to set up the new 
      service.
    

Wow. Out of fucking nowhere.

~~~
benmowa
if i had to guess, i'd guess this is 'out of' lobbying by big govt contractors
who want another budget pool, and MIL insiders pushing for this.

Right now airforce satellites for star-wars type initiatives and airforce
refueling tankers all fall under the same budget, while serving very different
organizational needs. conversely this is why 'innovation' arms/skunkworks get
created... because the mothership moves too slow and has too many competing
priorities and budgets to innovate and get out of its own way.

------
omegaworks
Welcome to the militarization of space.

