Fighting in Near-Earth Space: Analogies

[g.w.]

Air-to-air combat is not an end unto itself, but is used to prevent hostile action (attack, recon, etc.) and make friendly action possible.

Does the same hold true for space-to-space?

[jeff]

The first thing is to decide is whether the statement is true or not. To test, let's chnage it to "Ground-to-ground combat is not an an end to itself ...." In general, that is true because combat itself is not an end unto itself. Nobody conducts combat just for the sake of fighting. There is always some other reason. In that respect space-to-space is no different.

[g.w.]

Jeff:
Okay, "nobody conducts combat just for the sake of fighting"--there must be an objective involved. I thought that might go without saying, but I was wrong. That being said, does ground-to-ground combat really compare with air-to-air? Opposing ground forces try to take what we have (i.e., territory) or prevent us taking our objective; opposing air forces try to take action against us or prevent our actions; it's a subtle difference, and maybe not that important.

The crux of the matter is whether "space-to-space" combat compares well enough with a familiar mode of fighting for us to establish a common frame of reference; or, whether it's so different that we need to develop new references.

[gregory.hillebrand@peterson.af.mil]

In terms of slight differences: lots of confusion over Space Force Application (SFA) and Space Control. Both are "missions" per UCP. But SFA is not an end in it self -- just as artillery is ot an end. SFA assets could be used to attack many different targets, accomplishing the roles of air superiority, space control, interdiction or whatever.

So, per the thread, I am leaning more toward the side of being the same as current conflict (in the braodest terms).

Space may be more like ship to ship combat at the tactical level and more like information warefare at the highest levels.

[keith]

Based on the concept of "Effects Based Operations," I do not think it is proper to assume anymore that the use of a weapon might not be a means unto itself an end (if I expressed that correctly).

If our intention is simply to stop an adversary from using their own systems or our goal is to cut off the operation of a system for whatever reason -- BOOTS ON THE GROUND may not be the answer. To say that everything is to support the infantry (which is a cry I hear around this place all the time), is very close-minded and short sighted.

I think that with the advent of certain space weapons & information warfare weapons (CNA), we may be able to accomplish objectives without use of other weapon systems.

With space weapons and IO weapons, we can cross borders, bypass FLOTs, and not worry about supply lines. We are not there yet, but I would not assume that we won't get there.