Such a shift is necessary, he told an industry conference, to reduce the "fractious infighting, if you will, between various organizations" that now mars space policy and acquisitions, and to create "a more coherent framework" for assuring
U.S. space superiority...
Under today's practices, the Navy buys some of the high-frequency satellite communications systems it relies on, while the
Army is slated to oversee some of the advanced communications networks essential to lighter, more mobile ground forces.
Meanwhile, intelligence agencies and their champions in Congress have been battling with the Air Force over how to develop, and who will end up controlling, proposed spy satellite constellations.
The friction has grown to the point that House and Senate committees earlier this year voted out widely divergent bills for future space radar efforts. In addition to sharp disagreements over funding levels, the bills also clashed over which organization should be in charge of development...
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering other changes as well. One is a return to space organization principles used and then abandoned by the Bush administration, such as a single, unified civilian leadership structure in charge of buying both military and intelligence satellites.
One argument increasingly used by the Air Force to expand its authority is the need to develop new ways to defend space assets in the future. In one of the bluntest explanations of that argument in an unclassified forum, Col. Gary Henry, vice commander of the space superiority wing at the Space and Missile Systems Center commanded by Gen. Hamel, told the conference that the Air Force is looking for various ways not only to defend against, but to attack potential space adversaries. "We're going to have to defend aggressively," Col. Henry said, because recent advances by China present "a very clear signal we no longer have sanctuary in space."