Written by: Brig. Gen. (ret) Damon Feltman, Col. (ret) Bill Woolf
Since the Space Force’s fifth birthday last month, criticisms of the service’s lack of emphasis on acquisition activities have been prevalent. First, there were complaints that the Chief of Space Operations, General Chance Saltzman, emphasized the service’s need for an operational, warfighting culture instead of focusing on the importance of acquisition. Critics later emerged saying the Space Force hasn’t done enough to field operational capabilities faster. Finally, just last week there were arguments that the Space Force wasn’t sourcing enough personnel to the National Reconnaissance Office and was denying “developing Guardians with space acquisition and engineering expertise.”
It’s as though some believe that the purpose of the Space Force is to be an acquisition organization and a force provider to non-combat organizations, not a warfighting service.
These critiques are misplaced and diminish the purpose of the service. General Saltzman expertly described the distinction between service and support agency responsibilities in his comments at December’s Spacepower Conference when he said, “The Space Force is a military service, not a support element…if Guardians just provide support functions, we have no responsibility to do anything about the region [space]…if space is a warfighting domain and we are dedicated to it, then Guardians have an obligation to control and contest that regime, to make it safe, secure, and stable.”
Fascination with the number of Guardians at the NRO has two significant problems. First, it lets the other services off the hook for responsibility to source the joint functions inside the intelligence agency. By the NRO’s own numbers, the Space Force makes up greater than 75% of all military personnel assigned to the organization. Second, it ignores the broad trend that the capabilities underpinning battlespace awareness and battle management are becoming increasingly commercialized, commoditized, don’t need extra layers of processes to access, and can be done directly by Space Force organizations.
Perhaps an examination of the NRO’s manpower requirements is more important than arguing the Space Force isn’t paying its share. And if not sending Guardians to the NRO is denying them development opportunities with space acquisition and engineering, then perhaps NRO acquisition should be moved under the Space Force.
As for arguments on the pace of acquisition and fielding warfighter systems, speed of delivery and usability is always a legitimate concern to any service’s acquisition cycle. However, the criticism of the Space Force ignores several clear realities which are genuine opportunities for the DoD and Congress.
As it stands, the majority of systems the Space Force acquires are not for its requirements, but for others. Yet, it wasn’t until the fall of 2022 when Space Force was made the joint space requirements integrator. Even then, under the JCIDS acquisition process the Space Force still has to argue with former mission holders who want a faster buggy instead of a modern system. Cases in point: JTAGS and MUOS, both transferred to the Space Force by the Army and Navy, respectively. The Space Force still battles legacy stakeholders who want more of the same instead of transformative capabilities offered by the Space Development Agency (SDA) and Space Systems Command (SSC).
Additionally, there’s enough data to show that Other Transactional Authorities (OTAs) have helped the Space Force’s acquisition organizations accelerate new systems that didn’t previously exist under JCIDS. Robust use of OTAs has also shown that the defense industrial base has struggled to keep up with the speed and scale OTA programs demand. Training in systems engineering and investment in critical component manufacturing has been revealed as a key need.
Finally, let’s circle back to the argument of operations versus acquisition. The purpose of a service is simple – it is to see, assess, and control its assigned domains so that it can conduct assigned missions and provide joint fires and support under combatant commander direction. This isn’t because Gen Saltzman says so, it’s because the history of U.S. warfare proves it. Just as the air domain once had to be secured before land and sea operations could begin in earnest, now space has to be secured before the terrestrial services can do their work.
Acquisition, therefore, is an outcome of warfighting requirements. Not just requirements from the combatant commands or the legacy services, but from all services, including the Space Force. And to get Guardians to understand the needs of their service and the Joint Force, they must experience the culture of warriors, warfighting, and dare we say, “operators,” like any other service.
This is why the Space Force has transformed its training pipeline. Beginning this past fall with officers, all career fields will go through a common 12-month school where they will learn the primary functions (intel, cyber, intel, etc.) of the service and then serve their first tour in an operations unit. While in their operations tour, the Space Force will utilize its force generation, advanced training cycles, and operational test and training infrastructure to ensure forces presented to combatant commanders can first gain and maintain space superiority then provide critical supporting services.
Following their operational experiences, when they have demonstrated their ability to comprehend and apply principles of warfare and space power, select Guardians will carry their warrior experiences into force modernization roles.
All services require balanced effort and emphasis in their core functions, like acquisitions, and the Space Force is no different. Likewise, under the U.S. approach, services are expected to contribute to joint organizations and defense support agencies. But to be crystal clear, the prime directive of a service is to be ready **today** to defend the nation’s interests. This defense is enabled by the operational elements from all the services, including the Space Force’s space operators.
