It has been nearly a year since Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., went head-to-head with the Air Force and seemingly lost the initial Capitol Hill political battle over creating a Space Force military service.
The proposal by the Alabama Republican and his Democratic partner on a House Armed Services subcommittee, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., to create the first military service for space was nixed from the annual defense authorization bill passed by Congress.
But the Space Force fight now appears far from over, after having been given new life by President Trump.
Rogers is vowing the new service will become a reality and has continued to raise an alarm over an Air Force he says is leaving the U.S. vulnerable in space to adversaries like China. Recently, Trump weighed in on his side.
“And we’re actually thinking of a sixth [military branch] and that would be the Space Force,” Trump told West Point cadets on May 1. “Does that make sense? The Space Force. You probably haven’t even heard that. I’m just telling you now. Because we’re getting very big in space.”
Rogers spoke to the Washington Examiner as the Pentagon is preparing a new outside study that could be crucial for the Space Force proposal, and as the House is considering a new set of reforms in the 2019 budget that could lay the foundation for the service.
Washington Examiner: Satellites are out of sight but the U.S. depends on them for so much. What are the potential vulnerabilities and why should Americans be concerned about space?
Rogers: When it comes to intercontinental ballistic missile launches, the way we detect the launch is by [Space-Based Infrared Surveillance] satellites. We have these satellites way out that are watching the whole Earth. Let’s say China or Russia are working with North Korea to help them hit us successfully. If China or Russia were to take one of their satellites and dazzle [blind with a laser] the SBIRS satellite that watches North Korea and they dazzled it for just 10 minutes so we can’t see [the ICBM] and we don’t know about it until midcourse, well, by then it’s too late for us to launch our interceptors to take it out before it hits us. That’s just one example.
Washington Examiner: There’s a lot of threats in the world now. How do you rate the urgency of space security?
Rogers: High. The Rumsfeld Commission, they were the ones who were saying 17 years ago that this could happen if we don’t change the way we are doing things because it is not efficient. They could see on the horizon our adversaries pursuing this. What really got us to develop a sense of urgency was when we got Gen. [John] Hyten, [head of U.S. Strategic Command], and Harry Harris, [former head of U.S. Pacific Command], telling us that China and Russia were not only near-peers, they are our peers now. If we don’t do something forthwith, they are going to surpass us in space capabilities. That is not acceptable.
Washington Examiner: The Air Force has handled space since the early days of the Cold War. But you’ve had some strong criticism for the service. What’s the evidence it’s been bungling this?
Rogers: The fact that we are in this situation. The Air Force has had plenty of time to know this had to be done. If they could make themselves do it, they would have. They are great Americans, they love this country, they want to keep us safe and secure, but they are culturally never going to make themselves do it because they are an air dominance service. Unfortunately, because space is one of the 11 other missions they have, it is always going to be subordinate, but worse it’s going to be a pay-for, which is what’s happened over these years. We’ve seen repeatedly where the Air Force has reached into space program funds to put them against fighter jets, bombers, tankers. That has exacerbated this already bad problem that we have with space.
Washington Examiner: How would a new space service fix these problems?
Rogers: Our belief is the only way you are going to see space adequately funded and nurtured and developed is to segregate them into this separate service so the No. 1 culture is space dominance. They have an education that supports that, they have a promotion system that supports that. They have a budget that is completely segregated and protected so when Congress decides to put money against things we know it is going to stay there. But just as important as anything else they can have a separate acquisition system that is unique to space. The Air Force suffers from the same acquisition problems that the other services do. It is so heavy and bureaucratic and slow and lumbering. We want space acquisition to be agile because this is so technically rapidly advancing.
Washington Examiner: So this new space service would look like a Marine Corps, which is part of the Department of the Navy, but for space?
Rogers: Exactly. We want to see it remain in the Department of the Air Force segregated just like the Marine Corps. The Space Corps would have a chief of staff. My argument has been to the secretary of the Air Force [Heather Wilson] all along that, “You ought to love this. Right now, the secretary of the Navy has two people at the table fighting for him. You’d have two people at the table fighting for you.” I think in her heart she knows that’s the right thing but it comes back to that culture problem. She was Air Force, they are fighter pilot dominated. The fighter pilots are violently opposed to this because it disturbs their money pot and she feels like she has to champion that perspective.
Washington Examiner: Still, Secretary Wilson has recently announced some reorganization and reforms, and has lately been mentioning space superiority at the top of all her public remarks. Is the service still in denial?
Rogers: Completely. The secretary and the chief [Gen. David Goldfein] really believe that the more they talk about this being important that we’ll go, “Great, they got it” and we’ll go away and move on to the next shiny object, and they’ll go right back to what they were doing. When [Wilson] testified before our committee about the Air Force budget she talked about “We’ve heard y’all, we are more serious about space, we’ve committee to spend an 18 percent increase in space programs over the [Future Years Defense Program].” My question was how much are you putting in this year? Four percent increase. That’s not serious. If she put in 18 percent this year, I might think they are starting to get it. This is all lip service.
Washington Examiner: President Trump has mentioned support of what he calls a Space Force at least twice. Do you know how he became interested in the idea, and how has his support changed the political dynamic?
Rogers: I talked to him privately about it and he’s all for it. My understanding is he heard about what we had done and why. Plus, he likes disruptive. He’s a business guy. He has no problem with shaking things up, as we’ve noticed with a host of things. So, this is right in his wheelhouse. I think he heard about the threat from our leadership here in the House and embraced it. He told me on the phone he is not going to turn loose of it, and he told me not to turn loose of it either.
Washington Examiner: The president has a lot of experience in branding. You originally called it Space Corps, but does Space Force have a better ring to it?
Rogers: I don’t care what it’s called. He can call it whatever. The president calling it Space Force is cool with me.
Washington Examiner: Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan said he plans to turn over an interim report on space operations in August. That could be a key development for the future of the Space Force. What do you expect from the report and have you heard anything about the findings?
Rogers: No, I haven’t. It’s required that he give us an interim report in August but the final report won’t be until the 1st of December. It is my hope and expectation that what he will present to us in that final report will be the road map of how we implement a separate space service, and give us not only the timeline but how to do it and be as least disruptive as possible.
Washington Examiner: You and Rep. Cooper have said you have a lot of faith in Shanahan, that he gets the issue. Has his leadership opened the Pentagon up to reform ideas?
Rogers: Absolutely, for the same reason I talked about with Trump. Shanahan is a corporate guy. They are not afraid of change and evolution like services. This is not unique to the Air Force. Any of the services do not like change or rapid change, they want slow evolutions of things. Shanahan doesn’t mind breaking eggs and being disruptive. So, I think he’s the perfect guy.
Washington Examiner: What will you do if the review finds the Pentagon does not need Space Force?
Rogers: It’s a possibility. I will want to know exactly how they think they’re going to solve these capability problems short of having a segregated service.
Washington Examiner: House Armed Services just passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act and it includes reforms such as creating a new numbered Air Force for space. Are you laying the groundwork for Space Force?
Rogers: All of us believe it is inevitable that this is going to happen. I think Shanahan knows that. I want this to happen fast. I go back to what China and Russia have been doing. We have become so heavily reliant on national security space to fight and win wars we cannot let them surpass us in capabilities. I am convinced in my heart, and the Air Force has done nothing to change my view of this, that they cannot make themselves fix this problem. The only way we are going to do it is have this new organizational structure.
Washington Examiner: Will Space Force be part of next year’s defense authorization bill?
Rogers: Very conceivably. That was our whole point, to give this year for the study so they can report back to us and we can incorporate that into next year’s NDAA.
