Space Is the Battlefield: Deterrence, Hypersonics, and China’s Threat with ULA CEO Tory Bruno
Season 2 Episode 21 •Show Notes
In this episode of Cyber Focus, host Frank Cilluffo sits down with Tory Bruno, President and CEO of United Launch Alliance (ULA), which is responsible for more than 90% of U.S. national security space launches. Bruno discusses the escalating threat landscape in space, the urgency of a layered missile defense architecture known as the “Golden Dome,” and how adversaries like China may initiate future conflicts in orbit before any shots are fired on Earth. The conversation also explores the technological and policy components of space deterrence, Bruno’s insights from decades of leadership in strategic defense, and the role of directed energy in countering hypersonics.
Main Topics Covered:
-
ULA’s role in national security and heavy-lift launch capability
-
The increasing likelihood that future conflicts with China will begin in space
-
The case for a layered missile defense system, including THAAD and NGI
-
Vulnerabilities in U.S. space infrastructure and economic dependence on orbit-based systems
-
Directed energy as a solution to maneuvering hypersonic threats
-
Policy priorities for the incoming administration
Key Quotes:
“A conflict like that on Earth will begin in space because China will see it as a means of leveling the playing field.” – Tory Bruno
“[Space is now] a utility for our economy, everything and our society. Not having space would be like not having water, not having highways, not having transportation.” – Tory Bruno
“[Space] isn’t a force multiplier. It is now absolutely essential for basic military operations.” – Tory Bruno
“North Korea, Iran, Syria… there’s about a dozen countries that we now need to be concerned about. They would not necessarily be able to mount the volume of an attack that a China could. But… they might have some similar [counterspace] capabilities that in the past would have been really beyond their reach.” – Tory Bruno
“Golden Dome is way overdue… When you’ve got a dozen countries that have a capability to put either a conventional or, God forbid, a weapon of mass destruction on your kids’ school, then only having a retaliatory deterrent is insufficient.” – Tory Bruno
Relevant Links and Resources:
Guest Bio:
Tory Bruno is President and CEO of United Launch Alliance (ULA), where he leads the country’s most experienced and reliable launch provider. Prior to ULA, he held senior roles at Lockheed Martin, including as Vice President of the THAAD missile program. With decades of experience in missile defense, strategic deterrence, and space systems, Bruno is a leading voice on the intersection of aerospace technology and national security.
Transcript
1
00:00:00,000 –> 00:00:01,000
Tory Bruno [00:00:00]:
We used to be concerned that a terrestrial conflict might extend into space. A conflict like that on Earth will begin in space because China will see it as a means of leveling the playing field and enabling their ability to proceed with a terrestrial military action.
2
00:00:01,000 –> 00:00:02,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:00:24]:
Welcome to Cyber Focus from the McCrary Institute, where we explore the people and ideas shaping and defending our digital world. I’m your host, Frank Cilluffo, and this week I have the privilege of sitting down with the CEO of ULA, United Launch Alliance, which is responsible for the vast majority of national security space launches. And Tory Bruno has been at the Helm for 11 years, has done a phenomenal job navigating interesting times, interesting environments, but continues to lead the way on a significant set of issues facing our country today and tomorrow. We’re going to have a brief discussion about ULA, but also conflict in space, what we’re seeing there, what the implications are as a war fighting domain, but also as a domain in itself and where we go from here. So, Tory, thank you so much for joining us today.
3
00:00:02,000 –> 00:00:03,000
Tory Bruno [00:01:19]:
Frank, happy to do it.
4
00:00:03,000 –> 00:00:04,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:01:21]:
So I thought we’d start with basically, I think that many of our viewers and listeners will be familiar with ULA, but probably not in the depth that is probably worth getting into. So let’s start with the softball. And that is what is ULA? What are some of the activities you’re engaged in and what keeps you excited every day?
5
00:00:04,000 –> 00:00:05,000
Tory Bruno [00:01:48]:
Sure. Well, we’re one of the nation’s two heavy lift space launch providers. And as you pointed out, we’ve put up about 90% of the current national security space infrastructure that is in orbit. We specialize in the most exotic orbits, the ones that are almost always unique to the government. But we’ve also done a lot of exploration work. We have launched all 20 US missions to Mars. A Parker Solar Probe, we sent Perseverance to Mars with the helicopter, that sort of stuff. Vehicle is big.
6
00:00:05,000 –> 00:00:06,000
Tory Bruno [00:02:22]:
It’s a, you know, 23 story high rocket. It is different than other rockets. So I’ll share that when you’re developing a space launch vehicle, especially in that heavy class, you have to make a choice right up front in your architecture. Will a rocket most often finish its job in LEO or will it most often fly all the way out to a higher energy orbit, for example, geosynchronous. We have chosen to do that. That’s our heritage. That’s why most of the infrastructure for national security was put there by us. And as it stands today, we’re the last one.
7
00:00:06,000 –> 00:00:07,000
Tory Bruno [00:03:03]:
The vehicles developed by SpaceX are intended to go to LEO most often as New Glenn comes on, which will also be good for the country to have that broader industrial base. There’ll also be a LEO rocket. And of course, when we go overseas, Ariane is optimized for that LEO delivery. Now the spacecraft might go further. We’re talking about where the rocket is done. Fundamentally changes how the rocket works and what its architecture looks like.
8
00:00:07,000 –> 00:00:08,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:03:31]:
And I might note here, Decatur, Alabama, so near and dear to Auburn University and what have you. I’d be curious, so we talk about, so you were talking about the most exotic, I would also argue probably for some of the most exquisite capabilities the US government has. And success is paramount. So thoughts in terms of the mission itself and what you think that responsibility entails?
9
00:00:08,000 –> 00:00:09,000
Tory Bruno [00:04:02]:
Yeah, well, that’s a great question because it is a heavy responsibility and it really affects our culture here at, at ULA. We love rockets, we’re rocket people, we’re rocket scientists. I’ve got like 1200 of them.
10
00:00:09,000 –> 00:00:10,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:04:17]:
Literally?
11
00:00:10,000 –> 00:00:11,000
Tory Bruno [00:04:18]:
Literally, literally. But because of that mission, what’s always in our mind is that as cool as the rocket is, as much as we love it, it really has no inherent value. We are only here to take that important, life saving, exquisite payload to its destination. And that’s the only thing that matters. You can see it in how we approach our job, the attention to detail we apply, even just watching the live launch forecast.
12
00:00:11,000 –> 00:00:12,000
Tory Bruno [00:04:48]:
Nobody claps, nobody cheers until the spacecraft successfully separates. Because there’s nothing to cheer about until that mission is done.
13
00:00:12,000 –> 00:00:13,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:04:59]:
Well said, well said. And anything you want to share in terms of NSSL or the National Security Space launch? I guess we’re at phase 2.0 and 3.0. So congratulations on making the list for both and getting the certifications and what have you. But anything you want to share there in terms of what we’re seeing now?
14
00:00:13,000 –> 00:00:14,000
Tory Bruno [00:05:19]:
I will, I’ll just share a couple things. This summer we will introduce Vulcan, which has already flown a couple of times to be certified, but we’ll be introducing it to National Security Space Watch. So the first Vulcan missions which will happen this summer will be for that. It’s then going to pivot back and do some launches for our commercial customer, Amazon, with its Kuiper high speed internet Constellation that we’ve already started flying, but it’ll just be going back and forth between National Security and Amazon. I will also share that one of the special things about the rocket is the upper stage. Really the longest duration, most accurate upper stage in the planet. So we’re also very, very proud that when we deliver those national security space payloads, we hit pretty much a bullseye every time. They get far more accuracy than they contracted for. And that translates into the spacecraft both lasting longer and performing at a higher degree because of that.
15
00:00:14,000 –> 00:00:15,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:06:29]:
And the margins of error are teeny here. Right, so it’s a massive engineering feat.
16
00:00:15,000 –> 00:00:16,000
Tory Bruno [00:06:37]:
Yeah, it’s crazy. It’s like, it would be like teeing off in New York City and sinking a hole in one in San Diego.
17
00:00:16,000 –> 00:00:17,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:06:45]:
Boom. Well, I can’t golf, so. But yeah, that’s pretty impressive. You know, before jumping into sort of the space conflict domain, you’ve also been at the helm with a lot of change and a lot of disruption. I mean, 20 years ago it was a very, very, very different world than it is today. And dare I say you’ve navigated that very effectively. Do you feel that competition is healthy for the space, no pun intended?
18
00:00:17,000 –> 00:00:18,000
Tory Bruno [00:07:14]:
Absolutely. You know, whenever there is more than one company who has the technical capability to service a critical market, and there’s enough market to support more than one, it is a good thing. Competition is of course good for the buyer because people are striving to give them the best value at the lowest cost. But the other thing it does is just really, really important in this kind of environment. And with the challenges you’ve alluded to that the country faces from adversaries like China is it allows you to drive investment in new technology and innovation. Because when you have no competition, you’ll take care of your customer. But it’s very, very hard to invest a lot of money in technology if that investment doesn’t change your outlook as a business. It’s that competition that really spurs that along. So it’s super healthy for the customer, really, really healthy for the industry.
19
00:00:18,000 –> 00:00:19,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:08:15]:
And dare I say SpaceX, Blue Origin, do you see others over the horizon?
20
00:00:19,000 –> 00:00:20,000
Tory Bruno [00:08:23]:
Well, I think there’ll be a couple of more providers, but there’s probably only going to be market for three heavy class launch vehicles in the next decade or two. I think there will be room for one or two micro launchers we call them. So those are the very small launch vehicles that are currently flying from folks like Firefly, Relativity, and of course Rocket Lab. And I think, you know, one or two of those will make it to the other side.
21
00:00:20,000 –> 00:00:21,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:08:54]:
Ten-four on that. Well, thank you. Let’s go to conflict in space. And I think you’ve been very forward leaning and outspoken and I say you do this at the same time that you’re hearing the commander of Space Command, you’re hearing Space Force, you’re hearing a number of four stars talk about space in a way that historically we would have all gotten a whole lot of trouble. We’d be wearing Auburn orange. But, but now it seems to be part of the discussion, in part because we’re seeing our adversaries flex and demonstrate capabilities and, and obviously we need to be in a position where we can dissuade, deter, and if need be, compel. Tell me, paint your landscape of where you see space both as a, as a battlefield, but also the national security equities that are in play here.
22
00:00:21,000 –> 00:00:22,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:09:45]:
Everything from PNT to the birds themselves.
23
00:00:22,000 –> 00:00:23,000
Tory Bruno [00:09:48]:
Sure, you bet. I’ll start with remarking on what you began with as well. It does feel odd sometimes to be talking about these things, but that was a deliberate choice on the part of the Space Force and the national leadership because it has become so critical and it will require the best efforts and best minds of our country to contend with. Therefore, they needed, we need for people to be aware of it. So I applaud them for the courage of making that choice. Now, having said that, I think it’s important to understand that the role of space for us in conflict and deterring conflict has changed fundamentally over the last 10 years. We used to think about space as a force multiplier for the United States, something that made our troops more survivable, more effective, more lethal. And that’s just not true anymore.
24
00:00:23,000 –> 00:00:24,000
Tory Bruno [00:10:44]:
It’s not a force multiplier. It is now absolutely essential for basic military operations. So it’s not something that is in a way optional, that makes us better. We can’t live without it. And China and Russia, but especially China, know that. That’s why they have been investing so heavily in anti-satellite weapons. It’s why we have seen the posture they have taken in acquiring our intellectual property to help them do that. And it’s why they’re actually fielding those anti-satellite weapons right now. And…
25
00:00:24,000 –> 00:00:25,000
Tory Bruno [00:11:23]:
Go ahead.
26
00:00:25,000 –> 00:00:26,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:11:23]:
No, please, please, please.
27
00:00:26,000 –> 00:00:27,000
Tory Bruno [00:11:26]:
Well, and the difference that we also see across that spectrum is we used to be concerned that a terrestrial conflict might extend into space. So let’s say there’s an issue in the Pacific, or there’s an issue with China attempting to acquire Taiwan by force or something the Russians might do, and perhaps the conflict heats up and it would escalate and involve space, which would harm us in a number of ways. I don’t believe that’s true anymore either. A conflict like that on Earth will begin in space because China will see it as a means of leveling the playing field. And enabling their ability to proceed with a terrestrial military action.
28
00:00:27,000 –> 00:00:28,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:12:14]:
Well said. And I think it gets lost on people that our entire, not only our national security equities, but our entire economy is dependent upon space. Whether it’s PNT or precision nav timing. Clocks, You mess around with clocks, you can rule the world. And these are the sorts of things that I’m not sure the average American thinks about every day. But to move a product from A to B, to move troops from A to B, to move personnel, it is all not a luxury, but it’s dependent upon space and space being, so it is its own domain, but it transcends every other domain of land, sea, cyber, in that case. Right?
29
00:00:28,000 –> 00:00:29,000
Tory Bruno [00:13:03]:
Yes, Frank, that’s really well said and I’m glad you raised that point because it’s one of the things that I talk about with the space force and with policymakers on a regular basis. Don’t just think about the military assets in space. There is a role there to prevent economic coercion from our adversaries and to protect commerce in space. Because everything you said is true and more, not only could you not move goods from point A to point B, you can’t pay for them. Agriculture is dependent on space. When we think about the improved yields that, that just domestic agriculture provides because of GPS, for example, you know, we’re feeding, we’re feeding probably 800 million people every day across the globe with the improved productivity in agriculture alone. When we are concerned about the potential for climate change, what space does for especially over the ocean transport of goods, which is the dominant consumption of that type of fossil fuel. Again, it’s millions of gallons of fossil fuel that is conserved literally every day by the use of space.
30
00:00:29,000 –> 00:00:30,000
Tory Bruno [00:14:23]:
And so an adversary need not just fight us in space to enable a military action, they can harm our economy or coerce our government for fear of our economy being harmed.
31
00:00:30,000 –> 00:00:31,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:14:36]:
Very, very well said. And something that I think needs to be foot stomped. The dependency and the impact is just so significant to our economy, our national security, and dare I say, our way of life and society writ large. So I just think that gets lost on a lot of people. They think of trips to Mars, they think of the moon, they think of SIGINT satellites. They don’t necessarily think about just how dependent we are as modern societies on space. Let’s get to the deterrence question there. So I know you’ve done some, some good work in this in previous lives as well.
32
00:00:31,000 –> 00:00:32,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:15:16]:
But what, what does a deterrence strategy look like in space? How are our adversaries, clearly the existential threat being the Communist Party of China, but even Ukraine, I mean even Russia, we saw early on in, when they invaded Ukraine. Viasat and other demonstrated at least their, their, their interest around space. What, what are our adversaries doing and how should we be thinking about a deterrent strategy here?
33
00:00:32,000 –> 00:00:33,000
Tory Bruno [00:15:42]:
Yeah, also another great topic because I think when most people hear the word deterrent, they think about the type of, of classic U.S., Russia, even U.S. Soviet nuclear deterrent environment, which I’m also very, very familiar with having, having developed nuclear weapons in a prior life as well. Space will be more complicated and it will have some flavor of that. Not literally the weapons of mass destruction part, but rather also the notion that we need to make our systems less susceptible to an attack in space in order to deter the adversary from investing too much in being too bold. And the other dimension that’s interesting about deterrence in space is flipping back to what we said earlier. Remember, we made the case that a terrestrial conflict, invasion of Taiwan, for example, will begin in space because space will be the enabler that emboldens China to take on our navy especially, but also our air force to invade that island. Well, if they cannot succeed in space and succeed quickly, then they are deterred from that terrestrial attack back here on Earth.
34
00:00:33,000 –> 00:00:34,000
Tory Bruno [00:17:06]:
So it’s kind of like a double leverage point for us. If we can make the assets in space survivable, if we can defend and protect them, then that takes the element of surprise, the initiative away from China, who would open that invasion by attacking space first. So we’re getting deterrence in more than one dimension by making the space asset resilient, but also the other half of the strategy, by the way, that we have lacked until now. Our deterrent strategy in space has only been half a strategy. We have sought to make the assets more resilient. And what we have meant when we say that is, is that they can take an initial attack and kind of operate through it, sort of fight through it, if you will. And that’s fine up to a point. You can’t let them continue to attack and degrade your assets in space because eventually they will fall below a threshold of being useful. You’ve got to be able to make them stop shooting.
35
00:00:34,000 –> 00:00:35,000
Tory Bruno [00:18:09]:
It seems common sense, but it hasn’t been in the strategy. We were literally prohibited from contemplating a counter force element.
36
00:00:35,000 –> 00:00:36,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:18:19]:
You know, I’m really glad you brought that up because we have a very similar discussion percolating now in the cyber environment where we really have lacked a deterrence strategy. Truth is we’ve been blaming the victim. And yes, we do need to do more in the space environment survivability and the cyber environment become more resilient. But the reality is we’re never going to induce changes in behavior unless we can impose some cost and consequence on bad behavior. And don’t act surprised, the old Einstein quote that nothing’s going to change if we keep doing business as usual. So the status quo I think has to change. Speaking of space, do you see obviously peer countries are going to be at the very top of the list, but do you see drive by capabilities in terms of directed energy, other countries that we’re going to be, because I mean we’ve seen a lot of jamming, we’ve seen a lot of counter UAS that has maybe not full space implications, but it does to one extent or another.
37
00:00:36,000 –> 00:00:37,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:19:27]:
Do you see other countries percolating here?
38
00:00:37,000 –> 00:00:38,000
Tory Bruno [00:19:30]:
I do. This is one of the other things that makes this environment so much more risk intensive. You know, in decades past we could count on, I’ll call it the club, the club for sophisticated capabilities to harm us, especially in space being pretty small. And I think if you ask the average person, if not on the street, but perhaps in policy today, who do we have to worry about? Well they’ll say Russia and even to a much greater extent China, and then they’ll be done. And what has changed over the last, say decade and a half or so is there’s kind of now a black market where other countries are involved with both China and Russia and each other in sharing these technologies and helping one another acquire capabilities. And it has really lowered the threshold of entry for countries like North Korea and Iran, Syria. There’s a list that I won’t go into because I don’t remember. I don’t remember all the…
39
00:00:38,000 –> 00:00:39,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:20:36]:
Yeah, no, yeah, I’m not going to ask you to. So yes.
40
00:00:39,000 –> 00:00:40,000
Tory Bruno [00:20:39]:
Yeah, so no orange for me either. But let’s just say there’s about a dozen countries that we now need to be concerned about. They would not necessarily be able to mount the volume of an attack that a China could. But we need to be careful because they might have some similar capabilities that in the past would have been really beyond their reach.
41
00:00:40,000 –> 00:00:41,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:21:00]:
And I’m glad you brought that up because it used to be a very expensive game. The cost for that is dropping and, and again they don’t need a dominant role in space. They’re just going to look for that disruptive role which could be very critical to our national security and both regionally as well as more generally. I’m going to ask you a question that may be unfair. It’s one we did a long paper on and I’ve been beating the drum for a long time. So should space be designated a critical infrastructure sector? So ironically, it hasn’t been. It seems like the duh of all duhs, but the fact that it hasn’t been is just hard for me to fathom.
42
00:00:41,000 –> 00:00:42,000
Tory Bruno [00:21:46]:
I agree. And you really presented that argument just in the way you had asked one of the earlier questions. You know, the way to think of space now is, is it’s, it’s a utility for our economy and our society. Not having space would be like not having water, not having highways and transportation. It absolutely is critical infrastructure as a direct implication to our military operations. But just day to day ability to prosecute our economy is completely dependent on space.
43
00:00:42,000 –> 00:00:43,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:22:21]:
I’m happy you said that. We were going to have a spirited debate if not because it’s just really hard to understand how it hasn’t been just given its importance to everything modern society does. Let’s transition a little bit to missile defense and Golden Dome. And you have amazing experience also around THAAD, so this isn’t a new topic to you, but we recently had chairman of House Armed Services on this podcast, on Cyber Focus, Mike Rogers, and spoke to the significance around Golden Dome and its feasibility. And we had a little discussion around Brilliant Pebbles and sort of the whole Ronald Reagan deterrence discussion as well, which sometimes is more important than the capability itself if it’s packaged right. But, but I’d be curious what your thoughts are there. Obviously Huntsville, which is near and dear to Auburn, is at the heart of all this.
44
00:00:43,000 –> 00:00:44,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:23:22]:
What are you thinking there and where do you think ULA fits into the discussion?
45
00:00:44,000 –> 00:00:45,000
Tory Bruno [00:23:27]:
Sure. Well, I know Mike Rogers really, really well. I have not had an opportunity to talk with him about Golden Dome. I rarely disagree with Mike, so I’m going to go out on a limb.
46
00:00:45,000 –> 00:00:46,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:23:37]:
Good answer.
47
00:00:46,000 –> 00:00:47,000
Tory Bruno [00:23:38]:
I hope he agrees with, with what I’m going to say. But I think Golden Dome is way overdue. I’m a very strong supporter of that and it’s because of what we just said. There are so many countries now that have the ability to reach out and literally attack our homeland. That, you know, the Cold War model where we had really a bipolar world and we, we had just ourselves and the Soviets and we could rely pretty heavily on a cost imposition only form of deterrence is not the environment we are in today. When you’ve got a dozen countries that have a capability to put either a conventional or God forbid, a weapon of mass destruction on your kids’ school, then only having a retaliatory deterrent is insufficient. One of these guys are going to try us on sooner or later and we better have a defensive capability or we’re going to deeply regret it.
48
00:00:47,000 –> 00:00:48,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:24:41]:
Well said, well said. And what, what sort of core technologies are essential to success here?
49
00:00:48,000 –> 00:00:49,000
Tory Bruno [00:24:50]:
Yeah, there’s, I’ll, I’ll start with what they’re for and then I’ll kind of drill down so they’re in context. So we sort of have two classes of threats that are the most concerning. We have the ballistic missile threat, which we understand very well and I personally developed systems to counter those. We now also have to face into the maneuvering hypersonic threat as well. And I know there’s cruise missiles, but I’ll kind of lump all that together. Now the good news is most of the threat we face right now in the greatest volume is the ballistic missile threat. And the reason that’s good news is because we already have exquisite systems that are literally the best in the world at defending against that type of threat. We just need more of them.
50
00:00:49,000 –> 00:00:50,000
Tory Bruno [00:25:42]:
Today what we have for defense of the homeland is literally really only the GMD system, and soon it’s a technology upgrade Next Generation Interceptor. And GMD’s really focused on North Korea and even against Iran where it has capability, it’s not as robust. We need to have that system in greater numbers so that the magazine cannot be emptied by a mass raid or even two of these difficult countries kind of teaming up on us. And we need it located in two more places. Today it’s in Alaska, which does a great job for that North Korean approach. We also need an emplacement in the northeast and one in the south for non conventional trajectories that would approach us over the southern pole instead of the northern pole. That gives us our top layer.
51
00:00:50,000 –> 00:00:51,000
Tory Bruno [00:26:35]:
And I should pause and say whenever we talk about missile defense, we’re always going to want to talk about a layered defense. We do that for two reasons. Again, they’re shooting at your kids’ school. You want more than one shot because you want a very, very high probability of stopping that threat. But you also want the layers to use different physics and different phenomenology because otherwise the adversary is tempted to invest heavily in finding the one vulnerability in that one layer. And if he can do that and come through it, then he leaks all the way to the ground. So these are fundamental principles of missile defense. So we’ve got GMD, NGI, covering wide regions of the United States against a ICBM class threat.
52
00:00:51,000 –> 00:00:52,000
Tory Bruno [00:27:27]:
That’s a hit to kill interceptor that works only outside the atmosphere. So it’s great for intermediate to long range threats that will always pass through space on their way here. It needs an under layer. Well, the under layer is THAAD. THAAD is a wonderful medium and short range ballistic missile killer. But it also can kill ICBMs just with a smaller defended area. So we would place several THAAD batteries in regions around the country. I would also, whenever I’m placing it to cover a region, think sort of western state size region, I would put it at a major metropolitan area so that it’s also a really effective underlay for an ICBM pointed at a city.
53
00:00:52,000 –> 00:00:53,000
Tory Bruno [00:28:14]:
Complementing that would be Aegis on all three coasts. Another very capable system born on a ship. And now we’ve kind of got that. And what we’re missing, that I’ll come back to in a moment, is the hypersonic maneuvering glider. But the really good news about that architecture is all those systems exist now and they are in production. We don’t have to wait for them to come through development and then begin production and then build up a force structure. We could start filling out a force structure right now. And the President talked about in his announcement wanting to have a capability in three, three and a half years.
54
00:00:53,000 –> 00:00:54,000
Tory Bruno [00:28:54]:
This is really the only way you do that. And fortunately it addresses the most numerous threat, which is the ballistic missile threat. Next thing we have to deal with is the hypersonic maneuvering.
55
00:00:54,000 –> 00:00:55,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:29:07]:
That’s not so easy, right? Hypersonics is the one that keeps a lot of people I respect up at night.
56
00:00:55,000 –> 00:00:56,000
Tory Bruno [00:29:13]:
That’s the tough one. And for the purpose of this discussion, I want to really direct our attention to the word maneuver. All these threats are hypersonic. So if you know, I know you know this, but if you’re not a rocket person or a missile defense person, you might not realize that all the ballistic missile threats are hypersonic too. It’s not the hypersonic part, it’s the maneuver part. Because what that word ballistic means is that the threat will follow a predictable trajectory. So somebody launches a long range ballistic missile against the United States, we pick it up from space with our space based infrared system, SBIRS. Also exquisite.
57
00:00:56,000 –> 00:00:57,000
Tory Bruno [00:29:56]:
That system will tell us, yep, that is a missile. That is not a space launch vehicle. And this is the kind it is. And this is where it’s going to fly. Tell us its trajectory. You call those track files. It’ll tell us its flight path and what it’s going to hit so we know we need to defend it. And then we launch an interceptor, maybe more than one.
58
00:00:57,000 –> 00:00:58,000
Tory Bruno [00:30:17]:
And it’s just like shooting trap, Frank. You know it’s, these things are coming in at rocket speed. You’re going to intercept them with a rocket because that’s the only thing that’s that fast. You’re going to aim in front of it and lead your target and they’re going to arrive at the same place, and we do that to hit to kill. And if you’re curious, I can explain why we do hit to kill and not just a warhead. The problem with the maneuvering threat is it waits till you commit the interceptor and then it maneuvers out of that battle space or out of that flight path and you miss it. And it’s because of that velocity problem of having to close on the rocket by flying far out with another rocket to hit it.
59
00:00:58,000 –> 00:00:59,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:30:57]:
You know, sorry, please, please.
60
00:00:59,000 –> 00:01:00,000
Tory Bruno [00:31:01]:
I was going to say, I know how to solve that one.
61
00:01:00,000 –> 00:01:01,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:31:03]:
No, no, that’s huge. And you may not know this, but the same philosophy, and actually Lockheed was instrumental, is sort of the kill chain concept from missile defense was borne out in cyber as well. So, and there has been discussion on what, how to incorporate cyber into all of that because I have a hard time differentiating, delineating, and separating EW, cyber, RF. And then everything we discussed here, it’s all, we look at the world through our boxes and org charts. Our enemies don’t. So at some point, I think we have to look at it a little more holistically.
62
00:01:01,000 –> 00:01:02,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:31:50]:
Is that, is that fair?
63
00:01:02,000 –> 00:01:03,000
Tory Bruno [00:31:52]:
That is fair and that’s a great point. These are very complex integrated systems. There’s not going to be a magic solution. There’s not going to be, oh, we’ll drop AI magically into a battle manager fixed. This is a more complex problem. And you know, one of the other things that I worked on before were directed energy platforms. And so I’ll come back to that maneuvering threat for a moment. The problem is the relative velocity of an interceptor versus that incoming hypersonic threat that doesn’t, you know, in this case does maneuver.
64
00:01:03,000 –> 00:01:04,000
Tory Bruno [00:32:28]:
We, we need to change that math and change that physics. And the way you do that is with a speed of light round. Feel free to maneuver. You can’t outmaneuver light. From the standpoint of that directed energy platform, I don’t care how fast you’re going or how many Gs you pull in the maneuver, you look like you’re standing still. And so we would place that system in space, so we, because get out of line of sight. So we need that big horizon, 2,000 miles across kind of horizon.
65
00:01:04,000 –> 00:01:05,000
Tory Bruno [00:33:01]:
And when we see the hypersonic threat and we track it, this is a little bit different problem than what we have optimized SBIRS for because in that case, because it’s going to maneuver maybe more than once, we absolutely have to have continuous custody. So we need a new space based layer to track it. Space Development Agency has been working on that. That is what they call their tracking layer. And then when we’re sure we want to get rid of it, then we apply that directed energy solution and we kill it. You would be surprised at just how fragile a hypersonic glider actually is. And especially on the leeward side, because all the insulation, all the ablative materials are on the windward side.
66
00:01:05,000 –> 00:01:06,000
Tory Bruno [00:33:48]:
You can’t wrap it in that. They’d be too heavy and they’d be impractical. That unfortunately is a new development. You know, I worked on directed energy 15 years ago. We put that stuff down to prosecute the global war on terror and it’s, so we lost it. So we have to reconstitute that, develop it, qualify it, build up its force structure in space.
67
00:01:06,000 –> 00:01:07,000
Tory Bruno [00:34:14]:
So that’s going to take longer than three years.
68
00:01:07,000 –> 00:01:08,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:34:17]:
Well said, well said. And for the benefit of our audience, ablative material. So I think I know a little bit in terms of the old nuke environment. But, but do you want to just shed a little bit of light on that?
69
00:01:08,000 –> 00:01:09,000
Tory Bruno [00:34:29]:
Yeah, kind of the same, it’s kind of the same thing in when we are talking about really, really aggressive thermal environments like you get at hypersonic velocities flying through the atmosphere, a simple insulation is rarely adequate. And so we use what we call ablative heat shields. So these are big, thick, solid hunks of carbon, carbon or ceramic. They literally burn off on their way in. So some of the thermal insulation that the payload is receiving is literally because the material is burning off and sloughing away, ablating away, kind of faster that it can conduct the heat into the base material. So we call those ablatives.
70
00:01:09,000 –> 00:01:10,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:35:16]:
A good science lesson there because, but it matters, right? It can’t withstand, so.
71
00:01:10,000 –> 00:01:11,000
Tory Bruno [00:35:23]:
Well, and I developed hypersonic lighters before. Same story, same story, Frank. You’ll hear me say this a bunch of times. You know, we almost had this hypersonic lighter working like, you know, like 18 years ago. And then we set it down and we moved on. And China picked it up, stole the IP, and they’ve been going ever since.
72
00:01:11,000 –> 00:01:12,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:35:44]:
Yeah, I say sort of in jest, I worry about the day they stop stealing our secrets because they’re leapfrogging to the next set of issues. But you’re right, we’ve seen this movie over and over and over and over again. And that’s why I think the deterrence discussion is so important. And ultimately you don’t deter things alone. You deter someone behind the clickety-clack of the keyboard or an actor behind the technology. And that means we have to have an honest discussion around this. What’s acceptable, what’s not, what are the bright lines, what are the red lines and all of that.
73
00:01:12,000 –> 00:01:13,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:36:24]:
I think that’s going to dominate the next generation of national security policy wonks. And really glad, and hopefully they learned from previous experiences, including the technology you’ve worked on.
74
00:01:13,000 –> 00:01:14,000
Tory Bruno [00:36:37]:
Well we hope, and by the way, I’m glad you said that because that is such an important point. Deterrence exists in the mind of the adversary.
75
00:01:14,000 –> 00:01:15,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:36:49]:
And if they don’t know you’re doing something, it doesn’t matter either. Right?
76
00:01:15,000 –> 00:01:16,000
Tory Bruno [00:36:51]:
Dr. Strangelove. But also what would deter us doesn’t necessarily deter them. And I’ll share with you, one of the concerns I have relative to a space security environment is that it is a natural, asymmetric and low cost thing for Russia to want to place a nuclear weapon in high LEO orbit as a means of depriving us from space or deterring us from action against them that relies on space. And they will think that that is definitely a viable strategy. I believe they will want to do something like that. But for us, putting a nuclear weapon in space is a giant taboo. And we almost can’t imagine doing, doing it.
77
00:01:16,000 –> 00:01:17,000
Tory Bruno [00:37:43]:
And we don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking they won’t imagine doing it either.
78
00:01:17,000 –> 00:01:18,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:37:48]:
Exactly. And let me add to that just a little bit. What could dissuade, deter Russia may not dissuade or deter China. What deters China may or may not Pakistan or Iran or North Korea or you name it. We really do need to get down to understanding the motivations and the intentions, what they value and demonstrate our wherewithal when they cross a line that this is unacceptable, but you can’t have a one size fits all approach. I feel like we’ve seen that movie as well and it just doesn’t end well. And one thing, not to make an already complex set of issues even harder, but land based systems are so critical to space as well. Right?
79
00:01:18,000 –> 00:01:19,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:38:34]:
So, and, and, and that’s where I think what is, you know, when I worked for President Bush, I made the case that space should be part of the homeland. And I’m not sure, people looked at me like I had 15 heads. But the, the reality is, is it is. It is. Or at least our…
80
00:01:19,000 –> 00:01:20,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:38:54]:
The dependence on the homeland is so significant. But, but land based systems are critical. I know I’m running out of time, but I want to talk through the future as well. And Yogi Berra once said, the future ain’t what it used to be. And the reality is the only way to predict it is to shape it. What would you like to see from the administration going forward and what can they learn from this? I love the way you laid out the layered defense strategy and you literally pulled from THAAD, Aegis, all the systems that are going to be integral here because it’s not one or the other, it’s syncing it all up. But what would you like to see from the blue side, the good guys going forward? What would you like to see here?
81
00:01:20,000 –> 00:01:21,000
Tory Bruno [00:39:41]:
Yeah, I’d like to see really three priorities. I think Golden Dome has got to be top because we’re living under the threat and the threat of coercion today. So it’s late and it’s overdue. The second priority is what we’ve been talking about the whole time. Space is a war fighting domain. We got to get serious about it. We need to be able to have a whole strategy, not half a strategy. And then the final thing is longer term, but just also vitally important.
82
00:01:21,000 –> 00:01:22,000
Tory Bruno [00:40:11]:
We have allowed our domestic manufacturing industries and capabilities to drift off our soil, to become dependent on China and to let our own capability atrophy. We’ve got to bring that back onshore.
83
00:01:22,000 –> 00:01:23,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:40:27]:
Well said, well said. And any words on Decatur, on your workforce there?
84
00:01:23,000 –> 00:01:24,000
Tory Bruno [00:40:32]:
I love Decatur. You know, remember when we talked about culture and I said, hey, we feel really connected to our mission and we know that that’s what matters, not our rocket. That’s just a given when we’re doing business in Alabama, when we’re in Decatur and Huntsville, our people understand that without having to have it explained to them.
85
00:01:24,000 –> 00:01:25,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:40:53]:
Tory, you’ve, you’ve given us a tour de force. You’ve, you’ve covered so much territory. But what I’d like to ask, which I always ask at the end, what questions didn’t I ask that I should have?
86
00:01:25,000 –> 00:01:26,000
Tory Bruno [00:41:03]:
Oh, gosh, well, I think you did a really good job, Frank, of covering the waterfront. You know, the only questions I would think of, we’ll, we’ll need another couple of hours or a couple of days to talk about. So I’m going to save those for next time.
87
00:01:26,000 –> 00:01:27,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:41:17]:
I would love that. Thank you for fighting the good fight. Thank you for your leadership for all these years and your success is the country’s success. So onward and upward. And thank you, Tory. Thank you for spending so much time with us and hopefully this will be the first of many.
88
00:01:27,000 –> 00:01:28,000
Tory Bruno [00:41:34]:
It was my pleasure. This was a lot of fun.
89
00:01:28,000 –> 00:01:29,000
Frank Cilluffo [00:41:37]:
Thank you. Thank you for joining us for this episode of Cyber Focus. If you liked what you heard, please consider subscribing. Your ratings and reviews help us reach more listeners. Drop us a line if you have any ideas in terms of topics, themes, or individuals you’d like for us to host. Until next time, stay safe, stay informed, and stay curious.
