NATO Countries Pledge $1 Billion To Strengthen Collection, Sharing of Space-Based Intel (defensescoop.com) 50
An anonymous reader quotes a report from DefenseScoop: A group of NATO countries are set to begin implementing a new project aimed at improving the alliance's ability to quickly share intelligence gathered by space-based assets operated by both member nations and the commercial sector. Seventeen NATO members signed a memorandum of understanding for the Alliance Persistence Surveillance from Space (APSS) program as part of the annual NATO summit being held in Washington this week, the alliance announced Tuesday. Members will now move into a five-year implementation phase of the project, during which allies will contribute more than $1 billion "to leverage commercial and national space assets, and to expand advanced exploitation capacities," according to a press release.
The United States is one of the nations signed onto the initiative, as well as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Turkey, according to a NATO source. The transatlantic organization created APSS last year with the intent to establish a "virtual constellation" -- dubbed Aquila -- comprising both national and commercial space systems, sensors and data that can be used by NATO's command structure and other allies. The project is considered "the largest multinational investment in space-based capabilities" in the alliance's history, and is set to increase NATO's ability "to monitor activities on the ground and at sea with unprecedented accuracy and timeliness," a press release stated.
Participating nations will be able to use their own space systems, provide tools for intelligence collection and analysis, or purchase space-based data gathered by commercial constellations. "Integrating and exploiting data from space effectively has been a growing challenge over time," a NATO press release stated. "By leveraging latest technologies from industry, APSS will help advance NATO's innovation agenda and offer a new platform to engage with the growing space industry." The APSS project is part of the larger implementation of NATO's overarching space policy adopted in 2019, which officially recognized space as a new operational domain. Since then, the alliance has worked to bolster its presence in space -- including the establishment of a NATO Space Centre in 2020 and approval of an official Space Branch within the Allied Command Transformation in June.
The United States is one of the nations signed onto the initiative, as well as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Turkey, according to a NATO source. The transatlantic organization created APSS last year with the intent to establish a "virtual constellation" -- dubbed Aquila -- comprising both national and commercial space systems, sensors and data that can be used by NATO's command structure and other allies. The project is considered "the largest multinational investment in space-based capabilities" in the alliance's history, and is set to increase NATO's ability "to monitor activities on the ground and at sea with unprecedented accuracy and timeliness," a press release stated.
Participating nations will be able to use their own space systems, provide tools for intelligence collection and analysis, or purchase space-based data gathered by commercial constellations. "Integrating and exploiting data from space effectively has been a growing challenge over time," a NATO press release stated. "By leveraging latest technologies from industry, APSS will help advance NATO's innovation agenda and offer a new platform to engage with the growing space industry." The APSS project is part of the larger implementation of NATO's overarching space policy adopted in 2019, which officially recognized space as a new operational domain. Since then, the alliance has worked to bolster its presence in space -- including the establishment of a NATO Space Centre in 2020 and approval of an official Space Branch within the Allied Command Transformation in June.
Discoveries of Ukraine war (Score:2)
Current gen of Western space based intelligence is such that it's networked, has good coverage and good resolution. It can find tactical objects like ships or command posts, identify them with high degree of reliability, and supply this information to battlefield network to call long ranged fires on it. It's fast and accurate enough to enable tactical battlefield use.
As opposed to Russian network, which is still mainly intended for older satellite systems that use film. I.e. satellite is launched, takes pic
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to Russian network, which is still mainly intended for older satellite systems that use film. I.e. satellite is launched, takes pictures for a while onto film, then film canister is ejected towards surface, where it will be picked up and disseminated. This is mainly suitable for strategic intelligence, as it's going to show events months in the past. This is why Russians miss so much with their long range fires in Ukraine. They hit things that were in military use months ago, and that were vacated months ago. Their reconnaissance data is hopelessly out of date for tactical fire control, but it's all they have so that's what they are forced to go with.
Do you have a source for that? I tried searching and the best I can come up with is this https://www.thespacereview.com... [thespacereview.com] article from 2020 which claims the last Russian film capsule satellites were retired in 2015 (2nd paragraph),
Re: (Score:2)
This is secret, and any source you'll find on the topic is highly questionable in its accuracy. However more accurate of the Russian milbloggers were complaining about a year ago that a lot of success with digitizing satellites has been rolled back with sanctions, and that film had to be brought back.
YMMV on reliability of this information, just like everything else that's as secretive as Russian space reconnaissance program.
Re: (Score:2)
This is mainly suitable for strategic intelligence
Which the Russians also suck at, as we learned from the Ukrainian invasion. They underestimated NATO's unity in support of Ukraine. They underestimated Ukrainian willingness and ability to fight, despite Ukraine being a culturally closely related neighbor in which they had extensive intelligence assets. Russian wasn't even able to accurate gauge it's own combat capabilities, planning an invasion campaign far beyond its ability to support logistically.
About the only aspect of intelligence that Russia is c
Re: (Score:2)
That's our propaganda. What we really don't like to talk about is that strategic reconnaissance was on point, and early in the war long range fires utterly disabled Ukrainian GBAD, EW and general communications network entirely. They took out the main satellite used for communications, they destroyed a lot of strategic assets in the early massed strikes and they utterly paralyzed much of command structure.
Success of Kiev's defense for example came largely on the back of local defense forces. Where there wer
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, physical things you can track in the country next door which you've got spies crawling all over are easy to find. What they missed was ordinary Ukrainian's support for their own government, their lack of support for becoming part of Russia, and the government's willingness to fight.
Those things aren't hard to find out either; what they're hard to do is report up the chain of command to a leadership that doesn't want to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll once again remind you that all of the errors of Russian reconnaissance were also made by our side. We were in full throated agreement with Russians that this isn't going to last a month, and we should prepare for Ukrainian partisan war.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not; you're confusing what you heard from media talking heads with what our government was doing, which was rallying support for Ukraine.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm confusing nothing, as I didn't listen to talking heads or governments.
I was sitting on TG and listening to military lectures when invasion started. My information is first hand.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't listen to governments, but you assigned statements to them they didn't make.
Re: (Score:1)
>and listening to military lectures when invasion started.
Military are a branch of government responsible for handling military aspect of the invasion. How do you not know this?
Re: (Score:2)
Just occurred to me that I used "or" in my previous statement, which may be interpreted as "governments as a whole" rather than "government spokespeople" (talking heads) which likely caused the confusion between us. I would assume it's self evident since I did state I listened to military lectures which would be done by actual professionals on the topic within the government, but perhaps it's not?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is I'm quite sure that Biden actually got briefings for the "Russia wins quickly" scenario. I'm equally sure he got briefed on the possibility that Ukraine would hold out and win. Because that's how any kind of policy advice is given in a functional government. You don't pick out one outcome and predict that's going to happen, you work through all the possibilities.
The wisdom of that approach is borne out by the Russian attempt to take Kyiv. It actually came very close to succeeding. It was s
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't about "Biden briefings". This is about the fact that everyone from civilian intelligence to military intelligence agreed that Ukraine would fold. The only question that was debated was if collapse would take a few days or a few weeks. Suggesting that Ukraine would last more than a couple of months was considered ludicrous on the level of "2+2=5" because everyone crunched the math and Russians seemed unstoppable while Ukraine utterly demoralized and incapable internally.
Remember, this was coming o
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is about whether there was an intelligence failure on the part of US agencies. Judging from the actions taken by the administration there was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, I enjoyed this spin doctoring. Still worse than talking heads in mass media, but you're clearly trying to match them.
Speaking of retroactive spin doctoring, how's Trump doing after he fell down during his rally recently? It's clearly a marker of him being very old. And there was a perfect execution by SS in catching him before he hurt himself too much.
Hungary? (Score:2)
I would hate to see two or more tiered NATO, but how soon after receiving space intel are Hungarians likely to share it with Putin?
Re: (Score:2)
I would hate to see two or more tiered NATO, but how soon after receiving space intel are Hungarians likely to share it with Putin?
Putin already knows where his forces are, it's not going to be a problem.
Re:Hungary? (Score:4, Funny)
I think you vastly overestimate the Russian tactical abilities.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hungary has clearly aligned itself with Russia and ought to be booted out. Just because there's no clearly defined mechanism for it doesn't mean it can't be done.
If nothing else, the other nations could always form a "No Homers" club and all leave NATO together to reform "NATO2" without Hungary invited to the party. We'd see how much Hungarians love Russia once Putin has them by the balls.
Re: Hungary? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that comes to pass, Trump will try to make it happen which is procedurally easier for the rest of the alliance.
Good (Score:2)
All that can be done to containerize , block and counter Russia , China and the enemies of the alliance needs to be done.
All intelligence that can help countries under attack by non NATO countries repel the invading forces should and needs to be shared.
Ukraine at the moment is the best example. They need our help and NATO needs their help in containing Russia and defeat them.
NATO is our best hope for a peacefull tomorrow.
Good show.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping in mind there is for some insane reason that Trump could be the next US President and what he did while in office last time... the rest of the West actually has to worry about cutting the US out of intelligence sharing because Trump will ferry everything that hits his desk to Putin.
And Trump is big on scuttling NATO. And achieving 'peace' in Ukraine by cutting it off from aid so it can no longer defend itself.
[Facepalm] We don't care ... (Score:3)
We don't care about Trump's lies.
1. Trump is going to lose again,
2.There is no such requirement in the NATO treaty.
3. We already on the front line with Russia.
4. Europe has never invoked Article 5 only America has ever done that.
5. We (European NATO members) already outnumber.
Russia at least 5:1 in troops, tanks, AFVs, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
You know that NATO spending doesn't go to America don't you [facepalm].
Tell your Kremlin handlers you need better training on world reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't think that's a lie from Trump; he'll make the demand and use the failure to meet it as a pretext for pulling the US out of NATO to help Putin. Which I don't think he could do within the framework of American law, but at this point I doubt that would stop it from happening.
And even if Europe is in a position to handle the situation itself, losing the US as an ally will hurt a lot and make things a lot more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't think that's a lie from Trump; he'll make the demand and use the failure to meet it as a pretext for pulling the US out of NATO to help Putin. Which I don't think he could do within the framework of American law, but at this point I doubt that would stop it from happening.
And even if Europe is in a position to handle the situation itself, losing the US as an ally will hurt a lot and make things a lot more difficult.
Putin still has the mindset that old Uncle Joe had after WW2. Protecting the motherland is of highest priority, and buffer States are the way to do it.
That was the plan after WW2, and Uncle Joe came pretty close to achieving the dream, subjugating several countries as vassal states. And that is why NATO was formed. If say, Trump were to be elected, and as he has specifically stated, he will be a dictator, the plan is to kill NATO, and allow Vladimir to finally acheive the dream of old Uncle Joe.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha I guess it stings a little when someone calls you out as a deadbeat, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
And in classic Trump fashion if he's elected this is yet another thing he can claim credit on despite just coattailing onto the previous administration. Seems like actually believeing in and supporting the alliance is more effective than threatinging to destroy it.
As per the 2024 review 23 out of 32 countries are meeting their 2% obligation, up from 9 in 2020. Total defense spending is also up.
Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2024) [nato.int]
Re: (Score:2)
should strive towards
Welcome to world of non-binding agreements and why international relations is complicated. Improvement is still improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
With what threat? Leaving NATO?
You know what will happen if the US leaves NATO?
* The US will all of a sudden lose a lot of its soft power, as most of it is reliant on NATO (this is the least of the headaches the US will face).
* The US will have less control over SWIFT... You know, that juicy organization which manages international banking transactions. It's headquarters is in Brussels (a NATO country).
* Other US allies will all of a sudden start scratching their heads, wondering about the US' reliability a
Re: (Score:3)
From a business standpoint, I suspect the actual result would be fairly mild in the short term, as there would be a lot of hoping they could ride it out for four years and the US would recover.
From a political standpoint the US would be not exactly a rival but certainly no longer a trusted ally... but the fallout would take longer to play out than Trump's administration (assuming it remained bound by term limits once he was in).
As to internal resistance? The Republican party and its backers are all about i
Funny Belgium, Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NATO countries are not paying others. The compromise is to invest 2% into their own defence. Those below they can achieve the missing part towards 2% by spending nationally (e.g. hire more soldiers, purchase more equipment).
All of those can contribute to this intelligence project without big expenses, by making available their satellite data. This is why this collective project is so small. Of course 1 billion looks big, but once you divide into 17 countries and along 5 years, it's peanuts per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
only 17 of the 32 that care enough to join this project.
The remaining ones might not have space intelligence to share. Several of them don't even have a space agency (Latvia, Estonia, North Macedonia) or have a space programme limited to sending an astronaut to international space missions (e.g. Czech Republic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't "pay" the 2% to NATO. It's a 2% of GDP goal for *total defense expenditures".
The purpose of the goal is to prevent a country from joining and then becoming a burden to other members. NATO is a *mutual defense* treaty, so you have to be prepared to both defend yourself and contribute to other members' defenses. However there's nothing magical about 2%. Some countries need to spend more on defense than that to avoid being a burden than others; others less.
Both Poland (4.12%) and Estonia (3.43%)
Re: (Score:2)
And in that light, Canada's failure to spend makes more sense - the US has Alaska and land all up the west coast. The only country we really need to defend against is the US, and that's an impossible task if it comes down to it.
But we still ought to be doing it in support of a more stable world. Even if not just because it's the right thing to do, it remains in our own best interests economically.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia weren't in the process of destroying itself, Canada's security situation would be changing dramatically as climate change makes Russia's expansive Arctic territorial claims more practically significant.
Read between the lines (Score:1)
This is a great time to build Skynet
$1Billion to War Industries. (Score:1)
well.. not quite, but quite a large sum of it.
gotta keep war going to keep the money flowing.
wish we could go back to war bonds to pay for wars, instead of taxes.