The Golden Dome is ambitious, alluring and amorphous. Many defense pundits have asked “What exactly is Golden Dome?” They are right to ask. The system of systems that will bring additional layered capability and capacity into the missile defense architecture under the Golden Dome is still undefined in any traditional military requirement process. Skeptics cite this as a reason for suspicion and scorn.
Nonetheless, the Golden Dome represents an opportunity to tangibly improve homeland missile defense, while also driving changes in how the Department of Defense should acquire new capabilities and integrate commercial solutions. It is not a coincidence that the Trump administration is concurrently pushing defense acquisition reform and the Golden Dome along similar paths with his Executive Orders, the program’s robust Congressional support, the support of individuals within the Department of Defense empowered to implement change.
As the Golden Dome continues to be developed, there are three natural policy tensions that will determine the success of the Golden Dome program and the viability of defense acquisition reform efforts of President Trump.
Innovation vs. institutions
Too often, a false dichotomy is drawn between innovation and the institutional imperative for rigorous programmatic management (regarding cost, schedule and performance). President Trump has said that the Golden Dome will be “done in about three years.” The reality is that to meet that timeline, the institution must innovate. The individuals and organizations responsible for the Golden Dome must have unprecedented alignment of authorities and responsibilities for requirements, budgeting and acquisition across all the military services, combat support agencies, and defense agencies. The Golden Dome may be the first real opportunity for the Department of Defense to implement the Executive Order on Modernizing Defense Acquisitions, prioritizing commercial solutions and other alternative acquisition methods. It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the oft-parochial resource jealousy witnessed in the traditional budgeting process. But it is also fundamental to the success of the program and recalls back to the culture established by naval reactors with Admiral Rickover as well as Strategic Defense Initiative under Lieutenant General Abrahamson.
Architectures vs. aspirations
There is no agreement on the specific architecture for the Golden Dome. That has not stopped the defense industry from imagineering their way into exotic aspirational capabilities that defy reality, resourcing and physics. Almost three years prior to being announced as the lead for the Golden Dome, then Lieutenant General Guetlein, Commander of Space Systems Command, made a speech where he articulated his acquisition mantra as “exploit, buy, build.” He asserted that the Space Force should exploit the capabilities that it already had access to, buy products and services from commercial partners to address existing and emerging warfighter requirements and only build what was specifically needed for national security unique requirements.
He understood that his job was to engineer a system of systems to deliver a comprehensive capability to a joint warfighter while supporting commercial participation. Said another way, Guetlein understood that his job was not to out-innovate, imagine or incentivize American industry but to enable that ingenuity. This is a delicate balance between engineering a framework that is responsible for capability delivery while also nurturing an emerging delicate ecosystem. This is the mindset that needs to be brought to the table when developing the Golden Dome. If done right, it will serve as an example of how to build an operationally responsive architecture without killing the aspirations of American defense technology companies for the betterment of homeland defense.
Integration vs. instruments (of destruction)
Lastly, most people think of the Golden Dome as a pretense for the development of space-based weapons. But the most significant technical challenge lies in operational command and control software integration. “Exploiting what we have” in the context of the Golden Dome means leveraging the command and control systems that already exist in missile defense systems — including the Missile Defense Agency’s C2BMC system, the Army’s IBCS and IFPC, and the Navy’s Aegis Combat System. Having all the offensive counterspace capabilities in the world does not protect the homeland unless those capabilities can be stitched together in an operationally relevant command and control system that is able to engage targets in any and all warfighting domains.
Again, the service rivalries around resourcing and domain unique concepts of operation are tangible but all services share the challenge of software development, acquisition, testing and operational acceptance. While perhaps not the flashiest parts of any space system — software, ground and networks are typically the most prone to programmatic failure. In order to enable its success, the Golden Dome program must appropriately address the integration challenges of the existing command and control systems — maybe even before it starts developing additional interceptors.
There is still a significant amount of uncertainty about what the Golden Dome is from a technological perspective. Skeptics will continue to be skeptical, but realistically grounded optimists have every reason to believe that the Golden Dome will present an opportunity to manifest additional homeland defense capabilities as well as defense acquisition reform. The captain of an English expedition to the Antarctic once said “optimism is real moral courage.” That captain was Ernest Shackleton, and his most notable expedition was called “Endurance” — which is exactly what will be needed if the Golden Dome and defense acquisition reform is to become reality.
Sarah Mineiro is a former staff director of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, focused on space, missile defense, hypersonics, directed energy and nuclear weapons. She is now an investor, entrepreneur, and owns an advisory company.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.
