Vol. 44, November 2023
Key Points
Modern space-based environmental monitoring
(SBEM) is essential to establish the weather
information dominance necessary to empower
successful combat operations.
The U.S. military’s element of the current SBEM
architecture, the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (DMSP), is too brittle and
old to ensure DOD’s weather information
dominance in future conflicts.
Multiple delays to a DMSP replacement over
the past 20 years expose current U.S. forces
to serious risk, as there are limited alternatives
once the DMSP system reaches the end of its
service life.
To ensure the SBEM mission does not fail, the
Space Force must achieve its current strategy:
fielding the Electro-Optical/Infrared Weather
Systems (EWS) and Weather Satellite Follow-
on Microwave (WSF-M) programs to mature
technologies and then transition to procuring
an operational constellation with adequate
numbers of systems.
SBEM partnerships are also critical to the
SBEM Family of Systems (FoS), especially in
the near term, because the DOD does not have
enough capability currently on orbit to cover the
necessary orbits and revisit rates.
A defined program of record based on mature
technologies and current requirements is
needed to secure support, funding, and
resources to field the next generation of SBEM
satellite constellations.
As the Department of the Air Force builds an
architecture to support forces operating in a
CJADC2 construct, Space Force should consider
additional requirements for a more disaggregated
SBEM architecture to provide more real-time
weather data and greater resiliency with smaller,
less expensive platforms.
roughout the history of conflict, those commanders who were able
to harness weather insights have reaped strategic advantages. In contrast, those
who neglected to properly account for weather conditions often fell victim to
catastrophic campaign failures. Weather’s importance in military operations
will prove even more vital in an era where Combined Joint All-Domain
Command and Control (CJADC2) transforms how missions are executed.
Coordinating a highly networked force to facilitate real-time, dynamic,
collaborative engagements demands robust environmental intelligence.
Despite the importance of weather data, the military environmental
monitoring mission predominantly relies on a small number of satellites
well past their design lives–the remains of the 60-year-old Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Multiple failed recapitalization
efforts over the past 20 years fell short of yielding a viable operational
capability and left the space-based environmental monitoring (SBEM)
mission in a precarious state.
A brittle and aging DMSP architecture increases the odds of campaign
failure. e current SBEM strategy to replace DMSP must be accelerated.
is includes fielding the Electro-Optical/Infrared Weather Systems (EWS)
and Weather Satellite Follow-on Microwave (WSF-M). It also involves
establishing a defined SBEM program of record as soon as possible to define
the long-term vector necessary to sustain this mission. is includes defining
the number of satellites needed to deliver the quality and quantity of weather
data required for modern operations against a peer competitor.
e success of the SBEM strategy now hinges on a series of
imperatives. Core mission capabilities provided by EWS and WSF-M
must be fielded before the DMSP fails. Architecture requirements must
grow to meet future mission needs—it must be adequately resilient and
disaggregated; funding and resources must be assured and established
in an SBEM program of record; and critical SBEM partnerships must
be maintained to supplement the current DMSP architecture, which
already lacks sufficient capability to cover necessary orbits and revisit
rates to attain the weather information vital to all operations.
Abstract
Winds of Change: Environmental
Monitoring for an Era of Peer Competition
by Tim Ryan
Senior Fellow for Spacepower Studies, The Mitchell Institute Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence
with Scott Brodeur
Non-resident Fellow, The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies
MITCHELL INSTITUTE
Policy Paper
