Gen. B. Chance Saltzman speaks at the 40th Space Symposium last week. (credit: Space Foundation)

Lessons learned from critical reviews of Gen. Saltzman’s “Competitive Endurance”

by Brian G. Chow
Monday, April 14, 2025

Two years ago, Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations (CSO) of the US Space Force, called on both government insiders and external experts to “think deeply and critically” about his proposed theory of success for the Space Force, Competitive Endurance. In response, critical reviews have been published, fostering a broader exchange of ideas and feedback that are essential for refining the theory as it remains in the proposal stage.

As this review process continues, it is now crucial to assess its effectiveness, identifying both successes and shortcomings. This analysis reveals that several practical adjustments are necessary to ensure that Gen. Saltzman’s vision receives more comprehensive feedback. Without a broader range of input, the improvements required to effectively guide the Space Force could be significantly delayed.

Gen. Saltzman introduced Competitive Endurance during his keynote address at the Air & Space Forces Association (AFA) Warfare Symposium on March 7, 2023. In concluding his address, he emphasized the importance of critical thinking and collaboration, urging his audience to engage with his ideas. He stated, “My final comment is a challenge to all Guardians, mission partners, and other stakeholders, think deeply and critically about what I’ve proposed here. Challenge the assumptions, make your own assertions, recommendations, test your ideas, and share those ideas broadly.”

Ten months later, on January 11, 2024, the theory was formalized as a white paper. Gen. Saltzman reiterated that the white paper is still “an initial examination of Competitive Endurance as a proposed Space Force theory of success. Like any theory, it is a point of departure for analysis and critique.” This means that while the theory is a collection of ideas and principles presented in broad terms, it has yet to be applied to assess specific threats or design tailored countermeasures. It is imperative that we not only strengthen the theory but also refine it to ensure it generates effective deterrence and defense against the many space threats posed by our adversaries.

Gen. Saltzman’s address provides valuable insights into his thinking, while the white paper offers a more concise presentation. These two documents complement each other and should be considered together.

Competitive Endurance is built on a promising foundation established during “the first three years of Space Force analysis, experimentation, and wargaming,” as well as Gen. Saltzman’s own reflections since becoming the CSO in November 2022. The theory has two central elements:

1. Competitive Endurance advocates a strategy centered on sustained effort to maintain space superiority over adversaries. This means safeguarding “the Joint Force’s access to space capabilities” and protecting “the Joint Force from space-enabled attacks.” Only by ensuring space superiority can the Space Force fulfill the goal of preventing adversaries from becoming desperate or emboldened enough to “pursue destructive combat operations in space,” while also ensuring “the safety, security, stability, and long-term sustainability of the space domain.”
2. Achieving Competitive Endurance requires the Space Force to field combat-ready forces that meet three tenets: “avoid operational surprise,” “deny first-mover advantage in space,” and “undertake responsible counterspace campaigning.”

Lessons learned from critical reviews

As anticipated, numerous government agencies and space-related media outlets reported on the highlights of Competitive Endurance after Gen. Saltzman’s keynote in March 2023. He followed up with additional speeches to further explain his theory, ensuring that the space community was well aware of its significance and his call for constructive feedback.

On August 23, 2023, Peter Garretson of the American Foreign Policy Council conducted an interview with Gen. Saltzman, allowing the CSO to expand on his ideas and demonstrate his commitment to their advancement. Similarly, on October 10, 2023, the Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a discussion titled “Implementing Competitive Endurance: Space Intelligence.” Although the focus was on space intelligence, it was clear that the space intelligence community took Competitive Endurance seriously and was actively contributing to its evolution.

Despite these efforts, 2023 saw a lack of public critical reviews. This indicated that securing meaningful commentary from space analysts isn’t as simple as just requesting it, even if the request comes from the CSO. However, when Gen. Saltzman published the white paper on January 11, 2024, it did prompt several critical reviews.

On January 22, 2024, Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a constructive review. His comments were insightful, and I would like to offer additional thoughts on his points:

• I agree with Harrison’s observation that “at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military began to neglect…preventing an adversary from using space against us.” I would further add that, even now, the military cannot guarantee the resilience of critical satellites in higher orbits (semi-geosynchronous, geosynchronous, and highly-elliptical orbits) against attacks by dual-use satellites, such as those equipped with a “robotic arm,” as Gen. Saltzman mentioned. China’s potential use of these surprise attacks on our satellites could serve as a precursor to a large-scale invasion aimed at capturing Taiwan within the next several years. This urgent scenario is being insufficiently addressed, and the Space Force should prioritize resolving this vulnerability without delay.
• I concur with Harrison’s point that the white paper “does not attempt to operationalize” the theory. However, I would add that two years have passed since the theory’s introduction, and given the growing and evolving space threats, the time to act is now. We must apply the ideas and principles outlined in the theory to assess specific threats and develop concrete countermeasures.
• I agree with Harrison’s view that China and Russia “are attempting to condition us to accept a certain level of counterspace activity as normal.” To address this, I have suggested adopting a “carrot-and-stick“ approach to persuade China and Russia to join an international space traffic management system. By introducing a fair system that prohibits the positioning of counterspace capabilities under the guise of peaceful activities, we can prevent adversaries from leveraging lax rules to gain strategic advantages. The Space Force should seriously consider this approach, as well as others, to foster broader collaboration in space defense.
• Harrison also highlights the possibility of attacks that can destroy satellites without generating space debris. I would like to expand on this by suggesting that offensively disabling an adversary’s satellites without generating debris could also be used defensively to protect our own satellites. For example, dual-use rendezvous spacecraft, such as those employed by companies like Northrop Grumman, could be used to reposition an adversary’s satellite to a safer distance without causing damage or creating debris. This approach could be integrated into a broader strategy for defending our critical satellites.

On October 30, 2024, Josh Hartman offered three thoughtful suggestions on Competitive Endurance:

• “Develop spacecraft with… maneuverability, flexibility and concentration of force” to enhance orbital warfare. While maneuverability is discussed in Competitive Endurance, Hartman’s suggestion is more specific, emphasizing the importance of maneuverable spacecraft to improve military capabilities.
• “Achieve on-orbit persistence and coordination by deploying a tiered architecture of smart systems that deliver coherent and synchronized SDA [space domain awareness].” I would argue that this strategy should explicitly include real-time surveillance spacecraft designed to monitor the environment around each critical satellite, ensuring its safety.
• “Plan and implement countermeasures and protection strategies for space assets” that ensure resiliency against adversary attacks. I would add the concept of self-defense zones and small, inexpensive “bodyguard” spacecraft to shield critical satellites from potential threats.

On February 12, 2025, Maj. Benjamin Staats argued that adding maneuverability to Competitive Endurance would improve the Space Force’s ability to achieve and maintain space superiority. I agree, as maneuverability makes satellites more difficult to target and increase their resilience. If our space domain awareness systems and defensive spacecraft are also highly maneuverable, they can quickly reposition to counter emerging threats, further enhancing space resiliency.

In October 2024, the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies hosted a two-day workshop to examine Gen. Saltzman’s theory. On February 19, Col. (Ret.) Charles Galbreath and Col. (Ret.) Jennifer Reeves published the workshop’s report. While some of the findings “support the continuation and acceleration of ongoing efforts,” the report also raised concerns that the Competitive Endurance approach could undermine “the warfighting ethos of Guardians and subverting the legitimacy of the need for the Space Force to exist as a new and separate military service.” (Note: This negative statement about ethos has since been removed, as explained below.)

After the release of the report, on February 21, 2025, Theresa Hitchens of Breaking Defense reported that Gen. Saltzman had barred all Space Force personnel from participating in events sponsored by the Mitchell Institute, likely due to his dissatisfaction with the criticisms. Nevertheless, when I reviewed the workshop report on March 9, I noticed that the negative passage regarding the “warfighting ethos” had been removed from the Foreword, although the rest of the report still retained all the negative comments.

The Mitchell Institute’s report contends that the Competitive Endurance theory does not address several issues threatening the Space Force’s success, such as the prioritization of endurance over victory, inadequate resources, and reliance on commercial capabilities. Fortunately, Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Damon Feltman and Space Force Association (SFA) President Col. (Ret.) Bill Woolf responded with a fact-based, respectful rebuttal to these negative comments.

The dispute underscores the need for clear, separate reports—one focusing on critiques of Competitive Endurance and another summarizing the broader workshop findings. Such an approach could prevent misunderstandings between organizations.

On March 26, 2025, Gen. Saltzman made his first public appearance at the Mitchell Institute since the dispute, signaling that tensions had been resolved.

Gen. Saltzman must continue to seek critical reviews

The fact that only four critical reviews have appeared over the past two years is insufficient to help Gen. Saltzman further develop the theory of Competitive Endurance and practically apply it to assess various space threats and design appropriate countermeasures, especially as the Space Force’s responsibilities continue to grow.

The Space Force’s key role in space-based missile defense and supporting efforts to counter China’s aggression in Taiwan and beyond will only increase its workload. Gen. Saltzman expressed concerns about keeping pace with China amid budget constraints during his March 26 visit, but he remains hopeful that the Space Force will maintain funding levels in 2026. To meet these growing demands, robust critical reviews are vital to ensure the theory’s efficiency and effectiveness. Gen. Saltzman clearly recognizes the patriotic spirit of many space experts who contribute their expertise voluntarily. This invaluable resource remains underutilized, yet it is essential in the pursuit of efficiency.

Recommendations for encouraging critical review submissions

I have outlined several practical measures throughout this article to encourage critical review submissions. Below are additional recommendations:

• Publicly state intent and focus: Gen. Saltzman should clearly communicate that critical reviews are essential to refine the theory’s principles, apply them to specific space threats, and develop effective deterrence and defense strategies. The Space Force should also generate public interest by proposing relevant topics for critical analysis, such as how to efficiently counter the antisatellite threat posed by China’s dual-use robotic satellites and the benefits of space-based missile defense systems under varying investment budgets.
• Targeted outreach: Gen. Saltzman should actively seek critical reviews from Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and other relevant research institutions, especially those whose space experts have already published publicly available findings. A direct invitation from the CSO would likely prompt a substantial number of high-quality, insightful reviews.
• Facilitate response and acknowledgment: Many space experts would volunteer their services if asked by the CSO. Given the Space Force’s heavy workload, Gen. Saltzman should enlist their help in drafting acknowledgments and responses to authors who submit critical reviews. These responses should be approved by the Space Force before being released.

Gen. Saltzman’s commitment to advancing Competitive Endurance deserves a collective effort. We, both within and outside the government, must actively contribute to realizing his vision of enhanced peace and stability in space and on Earth.

Brian Chow is an independent policy analyst with a Ph.D. in physics, an MBA with distinction, a Ph.D. in finance, and over 180 publications. He can be reached at brianchow.sp@gmail.com.

Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.

Home