Following the 2001 exercise, for example, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said China “expresses its deep concern over the large-scale simulated space confrontation exercise conducted by the U.S. Previous Schriever war games heightened concerns among some nations that the Air Force was moving aggressively toward turning space into a combat medium. “But weaponizing space isn’t the focus - the focus is on how best to use space to solve challenges on the terrestrial battlefield ,” Darnell said. However, the focus was to be on temporary and reversible measures for disrupting enemy space assets, as opposed to destroying them, he said.ĭarnell said it would be “foolish” not to consider disrupting satellites used by the enemy. The previous Schriever war games indicated there is room for improvement in this area, he said.Īs in the previous war games, Schriever 3 featured so-called space control operations, including the denial of satellite capabilities to U.S. One area where Strategic Command was to be tested in its expanded role during Schriever 3 was its ability to better coordinate the use of Air Force, national-intelligence and commercial satellite capabilities during conflict, Darnell said. Space Command was folded into Strategic Command shortly before Schriever 2. Strategic Command assumed a greater role in Schriever 3 than in the past exercises in the series, Darnell said. John Jumper, who has encouraged the service to develop new “machine-to-machine” interfaces to speed the targeting process, he said. This has been a goal of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Satellites and increased automation in information delivery systems could expedite the decision-making process by ensuring that everyone involved has access to the same information, whether they are leading troops on the battlefield or in a planning room at U.S. That likely will depend more on faster decision making than faster weapon delivery systems, he said. forces might have to replace those capabilities with small satellites launched on quick-reaction rockets, high-altitude airships and unmanned aerial vehicles, he said.Īnother major focus going into the war game was exploring ways to reduce the time gap between locating an enemy target and engaging it, Darnell said. satellites at the tactical level, Darnell said. One of the key themes the exercise was likely to explore was coping with the loss of U.S.
The hypothetical adversaries were both terrorist entities and national actors, Darnell said. intervention to defend a nation being attacked by a neighbor, participation in United Nations peacekeeping activities and attacks against the U.S. While most of the details of the war game remain classified, Darnell said the scenario included several conflicts cropping up in a variety of areas around the globe, including U.S.
allies including Australia, Canada and Great Britain also participated, he said. departments of Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Transportation. The table-top game featured participation from all of the military services as well as NASA, the intelligence community and the U.S. Schriever 3 was set in the year 2020, Darnell said in a Feb. dependence on satellites for that purpose Schriever 2, held two years later, underscored the need for better-defined rules of engagement for using space-based assets. Schriever 1, conducted in January 2001, highlighted U.S. Daniel Darnell, commander of Air Force Space Command’s Space Warfare Center.
#Best game for space warfare series#
The previous two exercises in the series focused primarily on using satellites for strategic-level decision making, said Brig. 4- 11 at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, was the third in the Schriever series of space war games, which were established in recognition of the critical role satellite capabilities play in U.S. Air Force, according to a service official. WASHINGTON - Tactical-level operations, including quickly replacing lost satellite capabilities and accelerating decision times for launching attacks, were emphasized in the latest space war game hosted by the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
