Space Force will be in the (Department of the) Air Force.
President Trump has made the outlines of Space Force clearer. Space Policy Directive 4 sets out a plan for the new Service that will place it under the Department of the Air Force. Thus the organizational model will be close to that of the Marine Corps, a distinct service administratively within a larger Service Department. As the Marines fall under the Department of the Navy, so will Space Force fall under the Department of the Air Force (Politico). This is roughly what the Air Force and the larger Department of Defense had recommended (Washington Post). US Strategic Command in particular sees itself as likely to play a big role in the new Service's mission (Military.com).
JEDI contract scrutinized over potential conflicts of interest.
The Defense Department's very large and much litigated $10-billion JEDI cloud contract has run into more difficulties. The US Court of Federal Claims has placed a stay on a lawsuit involving Oracle, Amazon, and the Department of Defense because potential signs of a conflict of interest were discovered. The Defense Department requested the stay, and neither Oracle (the plaintiff) nor Amazon opposed it (Nextgov). The potential conflict of interest the Department is now investigating involved a former employee of the Defense Digital Service who had founded a startup Amazon Web Services was interested in acquiring. The JEDI Contracting Officer had thought the employee in question had recused himself from JEDI. The court documents are heavily redacted, but it appears from what's available that this might not have been the case (Federal News Network).
Planning rapid technology acquisition.
The cloud will have tactical as well as administrative uses. The US Army is interested in pushing cloud access out to organizational and unit levels, and has a research program designed to enable doing just that (Defense One).
US military services, especially the US Army, are planning to move away from familiar, purpose-built and hardware-defined tactical radios to software-defined radios. They see several advantages in such systems. They're more affordable. They're relatively easy to upgrade, and that addresses the familiar problem of rapid obsolescence that has long troubled military communications and information technology. They offer multi-channel capabilities legacy systems could not. And their advanced waveforms make possible ad hoc networking that renders tactical communications more reliable, more flexible, and more robust (National Defense).
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) has issued a solicitation for Special Operations Deployable Tactical Satellite Communications (SATCOM) systems. The work covers about 2500 deployable systems with supporting infrastructure at some 90 sites. SPAWAR, by the way, is also getting a name change that suggests the way the services see the future: its centers will henceforth be known as Naval Information Warfare Centers (C4ISRNet).
The US Department of Defense plans to undertake joint, integrated demonstration of satellites and ground systems. They Services have for some time been troubled by perceived inefficiencies in the way ground station development lagged that of satellites. Highly capable satellites too often found themselves supported by sometimes less capable and imperfectly integrated ground stations (Breaking Defense).
Funding rapid technology transition.
Appropriations can induce the sort of rigidity into programs that sometimes militates against rapid innovation. The US Army says it's worked out a Shark-Tank-like approach to changing needs, however, that has enabled it to shift some $31 billion to better align with the Service's priorities (Defense News). This is less radical than it sounds at first, as it's all conducted within the budget process, but it does bring high-level attention to problems of needs shifting faster than requirements, and of technologies advancing more swiftly than programs of record. (And it offers a pleasant parlor game: which Army leader, for example, would be the counterpart of Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful?)