Space Force Unveils New Naming System for Military Satellites

The United States Space Force has introduced a new naming scheme for its military satellites, aiming to simplify and clarify the designations of its space assets. This initiative, outlined in a memorandum signed in 2023 by then-Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, now the vice chief of space operations, marks a significant evolution in how the youngest branch of the U.S. military identifies its “weapon systems” both on Earth and in orbit.

The document, titled Space Force Instruction 16-403, was initially drafted in 2023 and amended in 2024. Its primary goal is to standardize the nomenclature for new satellite programs, ensuring that each satellite is assigned a clear purpose and orbital designation. While compliance with these guidelines is mandatory for all new programs, existing satellites will not require renaming.

Streamlining Military Nomenclature

Historically, military missions often have multiple names, leading to confusion. A case in point is the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP). The sixth satellite in this series was designated GSSAP 6 before its launch, but once in orbit, it was cataloged as USA-325, following the military’s sequential numbering. Additionally, the mission was marked as USSF-8, a generic identifier for any Space Force launch carrying national security payloads.

Retired Space Force Lieutenant General John Shaw, who contributed to discussions about the naming scheme, highlighted the need for a fresh approach. “We were looking at this in 2018, before we had a Space Force, and trying to fit it into the Air Force nomenclature,” Shaw stated. “Now that we have a Space Force, we can start over… I’m glad to see that it’s becoming reality.”

The new naming convention aims to clarify satellite missions, reducing reliance on acronyms that can obscure their functions. For instance, the GSSAP satellites, which operate in geosynchronous orbit, are intended for reconnaissance, yet their name does not convey this mission clearly. Shaw expressed a desire for more intuitive designations, stating, “I don’t like the acronym GSSAP. It’s a horrible acronym.”

Decoding the New Designations

The Space Force’s updated nomenclature will feature a two-letter prefix indicating each satellite’s mission and orbital regime. The first letter identifies the basic mission, while the second letter specifies the operational environment. The key mission designations include:

– **A** for Attack: For systems designed to engage enemy forces.
– **B** for Battle Management: Systems directing friendly forces.
– **C** for Communications: Supporting data transport activities.
– **D** for Defend: Protecting friendly forces.
– **E** for Electromagnetic Warfare: Engaging with signals in the electromagnetic spectrum.
– **P** for Pursuit: Intercepting space targets.
– **R** for Reconnaissance: Gathering intelligence and threat indications.

In addition to the mission designation, the second letter will reflect the satellite’s orbital location, such as **G** for Geosynchronous Orbit or **L** for Low-Earth Orbit. Optional modifiers can precede the prefix for test or experimental versions of systems.

For example, the 12th missile warning satellite in a highly elliptical orbit might be designated WH-12, while a medium-Earth orbit satellite in the GPS IIIF series could be labeled NM-10F.

The transition to this new naming scheme is already in motion. The Space Force’s upcoming replacement program for the GSSAP reconnaissance satellites will be the first to adopt these guidelines, named RG-XX, where RG signifies reconnaissance in geosynchronous orbit. The XX will serve as a placeholder for the series number, with the first satellite likely to be named RG-01.

This new approach also includes plans for refuelable satellites, addressing previous limitations of existing platforms. Shaw emphasized the significance of this development, stating, “That’s really the first time that the Space Force has said we want an operational platform to be refuelable.”

As part of its modernization efforts, the Space Force is also open to the use of “popular names” alongside official designations. This could mirror the F-16 fighter jet known as the Fighting Falcon, allowing for concise names that reflect the mission and capabilities of each satellite.

In conclusion, the Space Force’s new naming system represents a strategic shift in military satellite identification. By streamlining nomenclature, the Space Force aims to enhance clarity and operational effectiveness in its space endeavors. As military missions increasingly expand into orbit, this initiative will help ensure that each satellite is recognized for its specific role in national security.