In his recent message to Guardians, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman calls for service members to contribute ideas for catchy thematic names for a series of Space Force programs. However, a follow-up memo from Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, deputy chief of space operations, reveals some intriguing and possibly classified names already in use, hinting at the objectives of these efforts.
Saltzman’s “C-NOTE #32,” dated Oct. 25 and acquired by Breaking Defense, emphasizes that the naming of equipment and weapon systems is a way for a military service to reinforce its internal culture. „After all, words are simply thoughts given form, so the way we refer to something says much about the way we conceptualize it,” he writes, encouraging Guardians to reflect on whether the names of systems align with the „Guardian spirit” they aim to embody.
Saltzman’s memo provides examples from other services, including the Air Force’s F-16 “Fighting Falcon,” and poses questions about whether the Space Force should name systems based on themes like birds of prey for missile warning activities or mythological references. He invites Guardians to suggest themes for ten areas of Space Force operations, which includes satellite communications, missile tracking, and “orbital warfare,” with a deadline for submissions set for Nov. 30.
In another memo, Lt. Gen. Bratton outlines the process for naming these systems, with winning themes set to be announced in December. The memo also provides relevant background materials, including a brief on the official Space Force naming convention created last year and an “abridged list” of current weapon system designations.
This list includes expected names like “NAVWAR” for Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, but also unveils surprises tied to classified systems. Notably, two systems under “Cyberspace Warfare” and “Theater Electro-Magnetic Warfare” are indicated with the names “Red Dragon” and “Red Cloud,” which are absent from the fiscal 2025 Space Force budget documentation, suggesting they are classified projects.
Perhaps most intriguing is the designation of the “Reconnaissance” mission area, which is categorized separately from “Surveillance.” Typically, reconnaissance involves short-term data collection for specific military questions, while surveillance focuses on long-term observation. The reconnaissance section lists four code-named systems: Stargate, Snowgate, Lightgate, and Shiloh, all with the designation “ST” rather than the expected “R” for reconnaissance, which raises curiosity about their actual capabilities.
While the Space Force has not provided any public comments about these reconnaissance systems, Saltzman’s memo suggests that there could be a strategic reason for grouping these systems under surveillance. One speculative inference is that the “-gate” systems may involve fixed, ground-based lasers designed to track adversary satellites.
For example, a “light gate” typically refers to a sensor utilizing infrared technology to detect objects that pass through its beam, potentially for measuring various metrics. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Starfire Optical Range, located at Kirtland AFB in New Mexico, has long been associated with satellite tracking experiments linked to optical technologies for anti-satellite capabilities.
In 2021, Gen. Jay Raymond, the former head of Space Force, mentioned that the service was developing directed-energy weapons aimed at achieving space dominance, further hinting at the classified nature and strategic significance of these systems.
As the Space Force moves forward with its naming initiative and continues to develop these classified capabilities, the dialogue around thematic naming not only shapes the culture within the service but also reflects its mission-oriented focus on operational effectiveness in space.
