WASHINGTON — A lack of clearly defined roles and overlapping missions between the U.S. Space Force, Space Command, and intelligence agencies is sowing confusion among lawmakers, contractors, and the public, raising concerns about the service’s ability to secure resources and execute its mission effectively, industry executives said Feb. 19.
The criticism comes as the military space enterprise faces increased scrutiny over its ability to counter China’s growing capabilities in an increasingly militarized space domain. A new report from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, drawing on insights from an October workshop with dozens of experts from industry, military and academia, highlights persistent challenges in the Space Force’s mission clarity and strategic messaging.
Defense executives who participated in the workshop raised these concerns during an online event hosted by the Mitchell Institute, where they discussed the findings of the report.
Robert Winkler, vice president of corporate development and national security programs at Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, noted that responsibilities remain blurred among the Space Force, which is a military service; U.S. Space Command, which is a unified combatant command; and intelligence agencies operating in space.
“We’ve got Space Command, Space Force, the IC [intelligence community] all doing work in space,” Winkler said, stressing that even within the military, clarity is lacking. “We haven’t really defined what those differences are.”
Arnie Streland, senior director of strategy and business development at Northrop Grumman, echoed those concerns, citing confusion among lawmakers, industry partners, and the public regarding the Space Force’s precise role.
The recent “Iron Dome for America” executive order issued by the Trump administration highlights the challenge, as it mandates the acceleration of space technologies for missile defense without clearly delineating the responsibilities of the Space Force versus those of the Missile Defense Agency and other organizations.
“What is the Space Force’s role going to be for space-based missile defense and space-based sensing versus the Missile Defense Agency or other organizations?” Streland asked. “You need the clarity in the Pentagon, you need it on Capitol Hill, you need it in the general public so that the Space Force gets the support they need.”
Hesitation to go on the offensive
The executives also called out the Space Force’s current strategy for being too defensive. Winkler pointed to the service’s emphasis on resilience — hardening satellites and ensuring the survivability of space assets — as a limited approach.
“The Space Force talks about protect and defend, a very defensive mindset, and then they use it as a euphemism to try to talk a little bit about offensive,” he said. “If all you’re going to do is sit there and be resilient and be able to take punches, you are going to lose the fight in the end.”
He noted that, unlike other military branches that openly discuss offensive capabilities, the Space Force has shied away from such rhetoric. “First and foremost, we should be able to say the word offensive,” Winkler added, arguing that restrictions on discussing offensive operations could put the U.S. at a disadvantage.
The reluctance to embrace offensive space operations stems in part from concerns over the physical destruction of satellites, which could create dangerous orbital debris. However, Streland emphasized that the concept of offensive operations does not necessarily mean kinetic strikes on enemy satellites.
“Physically destroying a satellite may not be in our best interest because of the larger debris problem,” Streland said. “But there should still be a focus on denying the enemy its space capability, which could happen in a number of ways.”
Call for policy change
David Deptula, a retired U.S. Air Force general and dean of the Mitchell Institute, said the Biden administration actively avoided discussions of offensive space operations — an approach that he believes must change.
“We just went through an administration whose policy was not to discuss or embrace the ability to achieve offensive effects in space,” Deptula said. “And that needs to change with the new administration.”
