United States Space Force (USSF) Business Processes

Prepared by the Flatter, Inc. Thought Leadership Team:

• General Robert Kehler, USAF (Ret.)
• Admiral Cecil Haney, USN (Ret.)
• General Frank Gorenc, USAF (Ret.)
• General Lori Robinson, USAF (Ret.)
• Admiral Michael Rogers, USN (Ret.)
• General Joseph Votel, USA (Ret.)
• General Robert Neller, USMC (Ret.)
• Admiral Kurt Tidd, USN (Ret.)
• Lieutenant General Susan Helms, USAF (Ret.)
• Major General James (Rev) Jones, USAF (Ret.)
• The Honorable George Foresman, DHS (Ret.)
• Dr. J.R. Flatter, Ph.D., USMC (Ret.)
• Dr. David Corderman, Ph.D., FBI (Ret.)

Problem Statement

There is an immediate requirement for thought leadership with respect to USSF Organize, Train, & Equip (OT&E) “Business Processes.”

Discussion

USSF Strategic Communication Plan: In order to communicate the existential threat warfare in space contains; and also, to attract and retain the qualified and enthusiastic personnel to man the USSF, the USSF might consider building and executing a “Whole of Nation” Strategic Communication Plan. Further, this Strategic Communication plan might include lines of effort to create and sustain sufficient lines of communication with other Services & supported COCOMs – so that they may understand, practice, and employ USSF warfighting resources. Finally, we suggest a concurrent communication effort to gain bipartisan Congressional support (especially Authorizers and Appropriators).

Operations and Capabilities Concurrent Development: For USSF to successfully perform its OT&E missions, three “legs of the stool” must mature concurrently - 1) Warfighting CONOPS; 2) Enabling Technologies; and 3) Workforce Development. Thus, USSF could explore obtaining personnel with relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences in order to mature these needed OT&E functions. Likewise, sufficient fiscal investments in all three could be sought to ensure that each develops at the same pace in order to provide holistic USSF warfighting capabilities.

Concurrent Operational Execution with OT&E: USSF may review courses of action through which it will sustain the ability to continue force enhancement support (Missile Warning, SATCOMs, GPS, etc.) to COCOMs/National leaders; conduct full battle space awareness; and in concert with COCOMs, direct space-related conflict management for all phases of conflict with multiple adversaries at the tactical, operational and strategic levels.

USSF Service Responsibilities vs. USSPACECOM Responsibilities: To avoid “blurring the lines” between Service requirements (Deploy/Employ), the USSF might consider expediting the design and build of two distinct major headquarters staffs, even if neither is adequately manned in the short term to accomplish assigned responsibilities and missions. If these lines are allowed to remain blurred for too long, the USSF can expect stakeholders to confuse Service Chief prerogatives and responsibilities with CCDR prerogatives and responsibilities - to the detriment of broad and rapid acceptance of USSF as an effective independent service.

Organizing Processes

• Customize a “Design-Build” Team: Hand-pick a select cross-functional team to accelerate the design and build of key organizational functions such as S-Code functions, manpower planning, and acquisitions. This team will also prioritize the order in which these processes are created and implemented in order to deliver maximum USSF capabilities in the near term.
• Napoleonic Organizational Structure: Recognizing the USSF is a unique Service; with a unique mission set; and tremendous internal and external influences to design and build “something different,” it would nonetheless be challenging and potentially sub-optimal to wander too far afield from the historical Napoleonic organization structure (Sp1, Sp2, Sp3, Etc.) that has served DoW so well. However, functions could be combined to ‘right size’ the organization (e.g. Sp2/Sp3/Sp6, Sp5/Sp8). Concurrently, consideration should be given to aligning the USSF sub-structure in a manner suitable for the USSF mission (e.g. matrixed staff functions). A robust support function for tactical, operational and strategic intelligence, to include timely support of tactics/capability development. Multiple historical examples, such as USSOCOM, USCYBERCOM, USSOUTHCOM, and USSTRATCOM, have experimented with moving away from the traditional structure – with varied levels of success – and ALL returning to the Napoleonic tradition. For example, USSOCOM originally organized in 1987 along the Napoleonic Staff approach — but stepped away from it to a “Center” concept in the late 1990's— eventually returning to the Napoleonic Staff approach in 2010-11 because of the confusion and lack of clarity on how respective staffs connected.
• Doctrine: The USSF should quickly write warfighting doctrine that aligns with current and evolving national space policy, Unified Command Plans, Joint warfighting doctrine and other directives to the USSF Commander.
• Data Analytics: The USSF should work diligently to obtain data science capabilities to enable informed decision making regarding USSF core competencies (i.e. budget development, operations and capability development).
• Manpower Management: The USSF should quickly design and build a personnel management system that permits getting the right person to the right assignment per the USSF manpower requirements, geared to place forces to best effect and to ensure development of forces from new recruits through senior leaders.
• Joint Assignments: As it is likely that all USSF (“Service HQ”) billets will be occupied by USSF military and civilian personnel while USSPACECOM (“CCDR HQ”) staff billets will be inherently joint with a mix of USSF and other Services, the USSF might consider a human capital planning strategy that permits sufficient flow of USSF personnel into joint assignments.
• Stakeholder Engagement: USSF should consider establishing key relationships with external relevant organizations which are critical to USSF OT&E functions - e.g. NRO, SDA, etc.
• Legislative Engagement: The USSF should consider creating a robust staff function for congressional engagement on matters related to USSF equities.
• PPBE: In order to fiscally support the USSF and compete with other Services for limited resources, the USSF should strongly consider immediately organizing a robust PPBE process and obtaining sufficient trained PPBE subject matter experts to engage in designing and building a streamlined process that operates within the bounds of the FAR.
• Supported and Supporting: The USSF should think about how it will simultaneously act in both a supporting and supported role across its multiple mission sets or ongoing operations.
• Tooth-to-Tail: The USSF should consider organizing itself in such as manner as to maximize warfighters engaged at the ‘pointy end’ of the battle space (offense/defense/situational awareness) while minimizing rear-echelon support personnel. Further, it should organize itself to sustain continual changes as the battle space continually changes.

Training Processes

• Joint and Allied Planning and Exercise: The USSF must be able to perform planning and exercise functions with COCOMs to support SECDEF directed planning and Tier 1/2 exercises. At the service level, USSF should leverage perpetual exercises/training to prepare the force for escalation of conflict, and integration into the joint force during conflict escalation (the USSF is already integrated into the joint force during ‘steady state’).
• Shared Resources: In processes where it makes fiscal and/or practical sense, in the short term, the USSF should strongly consider sharing some USAF resources until such time the USSF has sufficient personnel on board and/or has created the needed capacity within their own organization – potentially in processes such as recruiting and recruit training.
• Separate Resources: In processes where it makes fiscal and/or practical sense, in the short term, the USSF should strongly consider building discrete processes separate from its USAF counterparts – potentially in processes such as USSF-specific training – to include USSF culture building training.
• Thought Leadership: The USSF should identify and secure qualified personnel who, through their knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences, both understand and can assist in designing and building the USSF.
• USSF Continuum of Learning: The USSF should work robustly to design and build its workforce training institutions (e.g. training schools) that will develop and reinforce through a career the space warfare oriented technical skill sets, agile tactical expertise, operational concepts, and innovative warfighting strategies required by the Joint Force.

Equipping Processes

• Feedback: A persistent capability feedback loop that assures operational improvements and tactics development in the face of an agile adversary.
• R&D: A robust, connected R&D community, with fingers on the pulse of global advancements in AI, data analysis, data warfare and information leverage. Breakthroughs on information resilience, anti-jam capabilities, encryption, and the like - tailored to the needs of the battle space - are expected focus areas.
• Logistics: Affordable and agile space logistics support systems, such as on-orbit servicing and value-driven modernization of ground-based assets.
• Launch: An ability to perform launch operations in a timely manner, at an affordable price, with managed risk.
• Command & Control: Appropriate Command and Control mechanisms with steady state ROE/authorities and a clear transition framework for crisis/escalation.
• Acquisitions: USSF must have an acquisitions development capacity that maintains the US technological edge and commensurate with keeping ahead of the threat. This requires streamlined authorities, value-driven processes, agile technology injection, and appropriate risk management (as opposed to risk averse acquisition approaches). Further, in order to successfully compete in this era of “Great Power” struggle, USSF requires an acquisition process that is faster while still meeting the spirit and intent of current laws. For example, can the Space Council be empowered by including VCJCS participation to speed up decisions and used as the JCIDS validation process?

Relevant and Valuable Analogies

There are multiple analogies, both past and present from which USSF may draw lessons learned:

• Navy Nuclear Propulsion Community (size/scale)
• USMC (size/scale)
• USCG (size/scale)
• USAF Stand Up
• USCYBERCOM Stand Up
• DoW Nuclear Weapons Council
• Other

Recommended Action

USSF partner with Flatter, Inc. to first conduct this problem identification and scoping with respect to “USSF Business Processes” and then assist in implementing the emergent solutions.