How is the Space Force doing on getting the resources it needs?

“The Space Force we have is not the Space Force we need” —Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations

The United States and our allies have never been more dependent on space-based capabilities. Every other military service depends on capabilities from space to do their jobs. A loss of space capability would have a devastating effect on U.S. military posture.

When the Space Force was formed in December 2019, growth of existing missions and the addition of new missions was not part of the baseline funding and manning. The initial force structure of the U.S. Space Force was essentially a conglomeration of existing space capabilities, systems, personnel and budgets from the other armed services.

Our nation currently faces the growing threat of hypersonic missiles that can be launched from land, sea, undersea, air and even space itself. Hypersonic weapons also can maneuver without burning engines, further complicating the challenge of defending against them. 

Additionally, these capabilities are under threat from both Russia and China. They have demonstrated direct ascent and co-orbital warfare with jamming, spoofing, cyber and grappling capabilities. Additionally, Russia has announced an intent to put nuclear weapons in space that threatens the very environment of space and the ability of satellites to survive.

At the time of Space Force formation, counters to these threats did not exist. Solutions have been developed by the new USSF, but they must be resourced. Back in 2023, I wrote an opinion article on how the Space Force deserved more resources.

“Despite dramatic rises in threats and increasing importance the space force has experienced shrinking resources. This disconnect creates risks for our nation.” —Saltzman

Space capabilities are crucial to the operation of the other five services, and these capabilities need to be defended with space being contested and is its own warfighting place,

The Space Force is not funded properly to accomplish the expansion of existing missions due to expanding and changing threats, nor is it funded to accomplish the addition of new missions.

Since the initial Space Force funding levels were established within the bounds of what was known at the time, and within the constraints of what was already considered a part of a “space force” (within the Air Force as well as smaller space elements in other services) the current funding does not contain the expanded or new mission solutions developed by the USSF, and these solutions must be funded and implemented

“The space force had been asked to accept new responsibilities and new missions. These new missions will require new resources, or we will face tough choices between delayed readiness, reduced capacity, or unaddressed vulnerabilities.” —altzman

The service’s budget has indeed increased significantly in the five years since it was established, but that increase reflects mission consolidation as many space-focused personnel and programs from the Army and Navy as well as the Space Development Agency moved under the purview of the USSF. Current budgets contain only a tiny fraction of the new investment needed for expanded and new missions. To put this critical domain in context they have just 3.5 % of the DoD budget, and 0.72% of the military and civilian workforce. 

It is well documented that the USSF needs a budget of at least $60 billion per year and an additional 4,500 people. Current budgets and manpower limit the USSF’s ability to take on the new and expanding missions, but more importantly it limits their ability to respond to combatant commands requirements in a crisis.

So, how are we doing?

Budget: It was certainly disappointing to see the budgetary stagnation with the baseline budget request seeing a reduction in the base budget to $26.3 billion (down from $28.7 billion the year before). However, the reconciliation bill added funding that brought the budget up to $37.5 billion ($7.2 billion for military space-based sensors and $4 billion for classified military space superiority programs). This would be a strong first step on the way to the necessary $60 billion if it was the baseline budget, but it is not. It is unlikely we will have reconciliation bills every year and there needs to be an institutional path toward $60 billion. Maybe an additional $8 billion per year leading up to $60 billion.

Manpower: It is clearly recognized the USSF does not have the manpower to accomplish their growing and new missions. The space force has 9,400 guardians, 5,000 civilian employees and approximately 2,900 engineering and acquisition support contractors — approximately 17,300 in total. To accomplish their new and expanding missions this is short approximately 4,500 personnel.

In this budget it appears that the USSF, rather than gaining personnel for expanded and new missions, is losing about 10% of its workforce.

It is true that the Space Forcereceived a manpower plus up of 600. However, in the Space acquisition business, engineering and acquisition contractors have always been used to cover an ongoing shortfall in manpower. The USSF, especially in its acquisition arm Space Systems Command (SSC), depends on engineering and acquisition support contractor manpower as an integral part of the military and DoD civilian workforce. As the numbers of satellites increase there is a corresponding increase in the acquisition workload. Not only have the numbers of satellites and launches increased, the speed of and numbers of acquisition have increased. As our peer/near peer adversaries deploy systems on three-year centers, we are not only increasing the numbers but moving to two to three-year development times, which increases the number of acquisition cycles. 

The USSF engineering and acquisition and contracts were reduced at least by 400 heads, reducing the 600 persons plus up to only 200. Not a strong down payment on 4,500. Getting 200 heads a year, even if institutionalized, will not get the USSF anywhere near what it needs. 

It appears that within the institutional budget, the Space Force will lose approximately $288 million in civilian staff, and approximately $36 million that currently support SSC in acquisition execution for its space and missile systems acquisition, and $90 million in personnel supporting on-orbit space operations.

More than $25 million would be cut from engineering and acquisition support, civilian launch acquisition and operational support. The engineering and acquisition support contractors being lost generally have decades of experience and knowledge in a large number of specific technical areas that is hard to have in the military because narrow technical capability and longevity in the jobs is rare. 

There will be a cost in terms of that technical and institutional knowledge that may never be able to be replaced.

“I appreciate that everyone understands the importance of space. But this is one of those, ‘“‘put your money where your mouth is.’ If space is important, then I would expect to see the space budget and manning look differently.” —Lieutenant Gen. Deanna Burtt, August 13, 2025.

The service needs consistent growth in annual funding and manning billets with a normalized budgetary process to buy the things that it need, and the people necessary to buy, launch, and operate these systems 

We need to institutionalize a funding growth path from the current $40 billion (with reconciliation funding) to $60 billion and get the additional 4,500 personnel necessary. 

Space is critical to the U.S. and our allies, and those capabilities are under threat. We need to continue to build space capabilities to meet new and evolving threats while defending these capabilities in a contested space environment. 

Major General (retired) Tom “Tav” Taverney is a former Vice Commander of AF Space Command.

SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these opinion articles are solely those of the authors.