Tension May Feed Decline of U.S. Power in Space

Differences between the Pentagon and intelligence agencies over capabilities to be built into future U.S. satellites have led to delayed starts in new programs and may result in a decline in U.S. space dominance, according to a new report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The underlying issue, according to two members of the committee, is the traditional tension that exists between the needs of two customers: intelligence agencies, which want to gather strategic information for policymakers, and the Defense Department, which requires tactical information for war fighters.

"Recent organizational changes and inter-departmental agreements involving the Office of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Defense, and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have highlighted the question of leadership of space acquisition programs," the committee report says.

NRO is the once-secret agency that designs, builds and operates intelligence satellites. It is part of the Defense Department and is staffed by Pentagon and CIA personnel but is funded primarily by the national intelligence budget.

Space intelligence programs mostly have been kept secret to protect their capabilities to see, hear and gather data crucial to the nation's security. But the recent cancellation of a multibillion-dollar intelligence satellite project has led members of both House and Senate intelligence panels to voice concerns over the future of U.S. intelligence-gathering from space.

Though it lacks the highly classified details that would make it more clear, the published House report does suggest some of the underlying issues.

"There is no comprehensive space architecture or strategic plan that accommodates current and future national security priorities, Defense Department and Intelligence community capability requirements and budget restraints," the report says, adding that the DNI and the defense secretary "need to develop this plan."

The report points out that satellite development programs are jointly funded out of budgets separately controlled by each of those officials, requiring them to make joint decisions, a process that has resulted "in delayed program starts." The switch of some space programs from the national intelligence budget, controlled by the DNI, to the military intelligence budget, controlled by the defense secretary, has exacerbated the issue.

"Some [Defense Department] personnel believe DOD needs its own space architecture," the report says, while others said that aircraft and unmanned airborne vehicles "best address the war fighters' needs." The high-resolution capabilities of space satellites "best address strategic intelligence needs," a view not accepted by DOD decision-makers, according to the report.

"Without adequately defining the requirements of the combatant commanders [on the ground], the Air Force and Intelligence Community are forced to hit an ever-moving or invisible target in managing overhead program requirements," the report says.

Another problem cited in the report is the lack of discipline among program managers who refuse "to deny requests to add previously unplanned capabilities to a satellite." This "requirements creep," the report says, "costs millions of dollars and delays programs in a seemingly never-ending cycle of requirements review and engineering modifications."

Another important issue -- "the ground segment" -- is raised by Republican committee members in their minority view on the report. Improvements are needed, they contend, in the "tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination of information derived from sensors in both air and space."

They describe this as a bureaucratic problem setting priorities about what intelligence is collected and by whom, which agencies will process it, how quickly it is turned into integrated reports, who sees the information, and how it is archived for later use.

Calling this an area "where small dollar investments could yield tremendous returns," the Republicans said the effort "requires leadership to cut through bureaucracy hindering its rapid improvement."

National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them to fineprint@washpost.com.