The armed services have three megamissions, Jerry Pournelle explains (in 1994):
Megamission One: “Today” Carry out the assignments given by the President and Congress.
Megamission Two: “Tomorrow” Procure today the weapons systems needed to accomplish Megamission One ‘tomorrow.’
Megamission Three: “Day After Tomorrow” Today identify and stimulate development of the technologies needed to accomplish Megamission Two ‘tomorrow’.
In 1920, he points out, the U.S. Army neglected Megamission Three:
Those in control of military planning failed to recognize the growing importance of airpower in future conflicts. A few forward thinkers dissented; to them it was obvious that by 1940 airpower would be decisive. Their vision was proved correct when German air support overcame the French artillery defenses of the river lines long enough to allow armor to cross. France fell within 45 days of a breakthrough that simply could not have been achieved without airpower. From that time on air supremacy was an important, and usually decisive, element of military victory.
Spacepower today is similar to airpower in 1920: within 20 years space supremacy will be a decisive element of military victory on land or sea. The power that has access to space and can deny access to its enemy will have an advantage at least as great as air supremacy or sea supremacy.
Moreover, space supremacy can probably be converted to air and sea supremacy. As an example for discussion, consider the system this author has described under the name “THOR”. Thor consists of orbiting steel rods perhaps 20 feet long by one foot in diameter. They contain minimal terminal guidance capability, and a means of locating themselves and their targets through GPS. They can strike fixed targets with CEP approaching 25 feet. Few elements of air and naval power are invulnerable to bombardment by kinetic energy weapons from space. No ship can withstand the impact of 20 feet of steel rod at velocities greater than 12,000 feet per second. Airfields won’t fare much better.
The major cost of Thor and other more likely space bombardment systems is the launch cost. Thor also requires intact GPS and space observation systems. Costs of both are driven largely by launch costs. A great many potentially decisive weapons come to mind given low cost access to space.
Low cost access to space is a matter of technological development, not of breakthroughs. It takes about the same amount of fuel to fly a pound from Los Angeles to Australia as it does to put that pound in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). There is no intrinsic reason why space lift costs should exceed airlift costs by more than a small multiple, if at all. The United States is not the only nation capable of developing systems capable of routine economical access to (LEO), nor is there any reason to suppose that every nation that develops that capability will be devoted to peace. Space supremacy can be used as a powerful instrument of international blackmail.
In summary: spacepower will be as decisive in 20 years as airpower was in 1940, and development of key space technologies is as important for our future as development of aircraft technologies was in 1920. A vital element of future spacepower will be capability for routine and economical access to space.
Interesting that what he referred to as “20 years from now” in his paper is what we refer to as “now”.
The US economy, especially its industrial sector (the tax and wealth producing sector) is simply too small to support our current military, never mind a truly high tech military.
The annual budget deficit of over $600 billion is about as large as the total defense budget, and in a few years, assuming interest rates remain historically low, the annual interest payment on the accumulated debt, which is rapidly expanding, will be the largest item in the budget. Then there are the huge unfunded entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, et al.
The most probable long term projection is that our Greek-like budget crisis will force us to downsize our military and to substantially reduce its capabilities.
After 1920 the U.S. military did not so much neglect the “tomorrow” as they were just plain not given funds for new “things” or concepts that would make a difference.
Borepatch,
I thought the same thing when I read this and then I thought to myself, ‘that makes Jerry’s prediction wrong.’ I mean, I don’t see metal rods regularly raining down on America’s opponents (or China’s or Russia’s, etc.)
Perhaps this prediction will come true, but for some reason, the great powers have yet to realize the military potential of space.
After 1920 and before the Army Air Force went Air Force with a budget to lose, a lot of really smart Army Air Force guys wrote a lot of really smart articles.
I wonder if those unmanned USAF space planes are for an implementation of sorts of something like Project Thor.
I doubt the semi-secret space plane is for dropping Project Thor-style tungsten rods, but I do recall that the RAF was planning on dropping inert concrete bombs a while back. A laser-guided 1,000-pound block dropped on your tank will really ruin your day.
We’re foolish for not building single stage to orbit reusable or at least being 100% sure we can’t. There are several designs that show we can. Even if it’s expensive the fuel cost are next to nothing. Not to mention the utility of fast refueling.
I think the reason this hasn’t been done is none of the major rocket manufacturers feel they can make money off of this so there’s no demand except for those that want low cost access to space.
Another reason is the Military Industrial complex has ceased to be really innovative. They’re just ripping us off. The guys who run these are no longer engineers interested in pushing the limit. They are all business guys who just want profits and, I believe, most are not technically inclined enough, or even care, to see what can be done.
With present management of the various aerospace companies we may not be able to build anything like this. They would demand so much to do so and carry about the task in such an inefficient manner as to make it financially infeasible. Look at the present estimated cost for a new nuclear weapon. A trillion dollars. That’s just stupid. It just pure monopolist rape. I saw a bid for upgrading 400 gravity drop nuclear weapons to fit them into the F-22 and R-35. They want 40 billion. This is absurd. The nuke part is already built and the added JDAM package(precision guidance) is also already built. We may need to go to a Russian system where we have design bureaus and then bid the manufacturing. Management in this country is asking for more and more money while delivering less and less.
He’s not wrong, but the orbital kinetic rods example is poorly chosen (understandably so, given the salience of the space race, and the primitive computers and sensors of the era).
Ordinary ballistic missiles produce the same effects for much cheaper costs. Sensors are the limiting factor, and mounting them on UAVs is cheaper and gives better resolution than satellites.
Both of these rely on PNT. The military is aware of that. Fixing it entails replacing satellites with smarter TERCOM and INS.
Space’s unique terrain doesn’t offer advantage until two generations of upgrade out. Once sensors can provide a full panopticon, speed will be the next bottleneck. That’s a competition between lasers and pre-positioned robots.