The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has released a report outlining several technologies and methods that the U.S. government can use to protect space systems from counterspace weapons and deter attacks in space. 

CSIS said Thursday that the report categorized counterspace weapons into kinetic-physical, non-kinetic physical, electronic and cyber capabilities and described a range of active and passive defenses that can safeguard space systems and ground infrastructure from various threats.

Architectural, technical and operational are three categories of passive space defenses described in the report. Space- and terrestrial-based are the two categories of active space defenses discussed in the analysis.

“Among the architectural passive defenses explored in this study, one of the key takeaways is that distributed, diversified, and proliferated constellations can all be used in various combinations to complicate the targeting calculus of an adversary and reduce the benefits of attacking any single satellite,” the report reads.

Technical passive defenses, such as jam-resistant waveforms, antenna nulling and electromagnetic shielding, can make platforms more challenging to attack, while satellite maneuver, stealth, deception, decoys and other operational passive defenses can make satellites difficult to detect, monitor and target.

Space-based active defenses destroy or disrupt an adversary’s counterspace weapons to protect space platforms, while terrestrial-based defenses can be employed “to target counterspace weapons in space and the ground systems that control and operate these weapons," according to the analysis.

The report also offered several recommendations, such as prioritizing investments in space domain awareness capabilities, advancing the use of lasing systems, onboard jamming and other non-kinetic active defenses to prevent kinetic attacks against high-value satellites and considering new options to improve the Department of Defense’s integration with commercial space companies and better use existing space platforms for national security applications.

Todd Harrison, director of Defense Budget Analysis and director of the Aerospace Security Project at CSIS, co-wrote the report with Kaitlyn Johnson, deputy director and fellow of the Aerospace Security Project at CSIS, and Makena Young, a research associate with the center’s Aerospace Security Project.

Gen. Mark Kelly, head of Air Combat Command (ACC), said he is confident about the capability of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) aircraft program but he is unsure whether the country has the focus to deploy NGAD in time to counter potential adversaries, Defense News reported Friday. 

“I for one am confident that the technology and the test points have developed to where NGAD technology will get fielded,” Kelly said Friday during a roundtable with reporters.

“And I’m confident that the adversaries on the other end of this technology will suffer a very tough day and tough week and tough war. What I don’t know — and we’re working with our great partners — is if our nation will have the courage and the focus to field this capability before someone like the Chinese fields it and uses it against us.”

Kelly described the NGAD program a “keen capability” and stressed the need of the country and joint force for leading-edge technology to ensure air superiority.

The Air Force requested $1.044 billion in fiscal year 2021 for NGAD, but Congress authorized $904 million in funds for the program.

Gen. Charles "CQ" Brown, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, said the service has completed work on an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) strategy that details investments through the end of the decade and is now preparing to brief congressional members on the new ISR strategy, Breaking Defense reported Friday.

Brown said Friday during a press conference the service has briefed some lawmakers and their staff about the ISR strategy that includes the General Atomics-built MQ-9 Reaper drone.

“I will tell you right now, the MQ-9 is still a very popular platform with the Combatant Commanders,” Brown said. “So, it’s not something we can just walk away from.”

He said the service can’t keep a complete fleet of Reapers into the future because it “won’t necessarily survive in a contested environment. And so I’ve got to make sure I’ve got that kind of capability as well. … So, there’s going to be a balance there as we go forward.”

Air Force Research Laboratory and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics met to discuss changes that AFRL's Rocket Lab has undergone in terms of site use, in-space propulsion and space access.

Representatives from the two organizations met virtually from Tuesday to Wednesday under the chairmanship of Ray Flores, deputy director for Air Force Materiel Command's Office of the Inspector General, AFRL said Wednesday.

AFRL Rocket Lab has changed its business model to more actively address the military's technology needs. The laboratory has also expanded its capacity to 90 percent via public private partnerships across decades.

Shawn Phillips, chief of AFRL's rocket propulsion division, said the laboratory and AIAA collaborate to identify PPP opportunities and understand issues faced by aerospace and defense communities. The division has been working on hypersonic technologies for almost 70 years.

Ernest Wu, CEO of engineering company ERC, and Suren Singhal, deputy manager at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's Office of the Chief Engineer, helped AFRL and AIAA set up the virtual meeting.