Overview:
The Space Force, still in its infancy at five years old, must overcome systemic issues, including inadequate resources, unclear roles, and a lack of warfighting ethos, says a new report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force lacks the resources and warrior mentality needed to compete with China in an increasingly militarized space domain, according to a new report that challenges the service’s fundamental strategy.
The report, released Feb. 19 by the Mitchell Institute’s Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence, takes direct aim at Space Force Chief Gen. Chance Saltzman’s “theory of success” framework, arguing that his emphasis on competitive endurance over victory could leave America vulnerable in the new space race.
“Systemic issues exist within the Space Force and Department of Defense that threaten the success of the Space Force in a long-term competition with China,” write authors Charles Galbreath and Jennifer Reeves, both retired military officers and senior fellows at the Mitchell Institute, a nonpartisan think tank affiliated with the Air & Space Forces Association.
At the heart of their criticism is what they see as a culture problem: While other military branches embrace their combat roles, the five-year-old Space Force has struggled to develop a similar war-fighting ethos among its guardians, as Space Force personnel are known.
‘Self imposed restrictions’
The nearly $30 billion Space Force budget is inadequate, the report argues, suggesting funds could be redirected from other services. But money isn’t the only issue – the authors say America’s self-imposed restrictions on space weapons are giving China a dangerous advantage.
“Our adversaries are clearly not complying with that same policy,” Reeves said in a briefing to reporters, referring to the Western stance of “no weapons in space” that goes beyond the 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s limited prohibition on nuclear weapons. “Our self restraint does not restrain or deter China.”
Meanwhile, China is deploying anti-satellite missiles and dual-use spacecraft, forcing what the report calls a necessary “paradigm shift” in U.S. space operations. The authors argue for policy changes to authorize both kinetic and non-kinetic counterspace systems, even if they risk creating orbital debris.
“We need to be able to provide a range of options to our decision makers, and some of those might include the potential creation of debris,” Galbreath said. “If the only options are: do nothing or create debris, we’re not giving our leaders a good enough set of options to choose from.”
The report, titled “Ensuring a Spacepower Advantage in Prolonged Competition,” draws on insights from an October workshop that brought together dozens of experts from industry, military and academia.
Reliance on commercial firms
The report also raises concerns about the Space Force’s relationship with the commercial space sector.
While praising the innovation potential of new space companies, the authors warn against “an overreliance on commercial space” that could undermine the rationale for having a separate military service. They argue some missions “must remain exclusively military functions” – a pointed critique as the Defense Department increasingly looks to leverage private sector investment.
This recommendation comes amid dramatic changes in the space industrial base. While traditional defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have long dominated the military space sector, a surge of venture-funded startups has transformed the industry. A recent Defense Business Board report highlighted that over 5,000 space-focused companies now contribute to the space industrial base, bringing billions in private investment. However, the Mitchell Institute cautions that the Space Force must ensure that key military functions remain exclusively under government control.
But perhaps most fundamentally, the Mitchell Institute report suggests the Space Force has failed to clearly communicate its purpose beyond space advocates, hampering its ability to secure resources and support.
“The Space Force must actively and continually articulate why it exists and what it does to Congress, the American people, and even to guardians,” the report states, arguing that the service needs to better define its combat role alongside other branches.
Saltzman’s strategy is “strategically sound” in its goal of protecting U.S. interests without triggering catastrophic conflict, the report says, but the authors argue this approach of prioritizing resilience and deterrence risks undermining the service’s development as a true combat force at a critical moment in space competition.
As China continues to expand its military capabilities in space, the U.S. faces a critical decision — whether to maintain the status quo or embrace a more assertive and combat-ready approach to space operations, the report concludes.
