"Space Force Gen. Mike Guetlein described them as satellite 'dogfighting.'"
Space as the ultimate high ground, and why it matters now
Gen. (Ret) Jim Slife, writing from his post‑Pentagon vantage, argues that "space is now the ultimate high ground in warfighting" and that control of orbital assets has become a baseline requirement for operations in the maritime, air, ground, and cyber domains. He points to recent combat operations in Iran, Ukraine, and Venezuela where, he says, space operations "were vital to each and every movement of military forces" — a set of events he uses to dispel the notion that space plays a secondary role in modern conflict.
Chinese on-orbit maneuvers and refueling: concrete examples cited
Slife highlights two specific capabilities he believes illustrate the shifting risk environment: in 2024 the Space Force publicly confirmed that five Chinese satellites conducted coordinated proximity maneuvers in low‑Earth orbit, an event Gen. Mike Guetlein described as satellite "dogfighting." He adds that Beijing has "since demonstrated on-orbit satellite refueling in geostationary orbit," a capability Slife says extends asset life in ways the United States currently cannot match. For Slife, those developments show adversaries are exploiting the vulnerabilities of legacy space platforms.
Legacy acquisition failures that shaped the warning
The argument is anchored in program history Slife recounts as cautionary examples: the Space‑Based Infrared System (SBIRS) fielded nearly a decade late with a five‑fold cost growth; the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) constellation delivered years late with two Nunn‑McCurdy cost breaches; the GPS ground control system program, OCX, was cancelled after $6.3 billion was spent without delivering core capabilities; and broader GPS modernization efforts have "stumbled" because of mismatches between satellite fielding timelines and intended user terminals. Slife uses these outcomes to argue the status quo acquisition model produces long delays and systemic vulnerability.
Non‑traditional space firms: Turion Space, Eutelsat Network Solutions, and a new industrial base
Slife says the answer lies beyond the legacy primes. He points to an emergent, mostly venture‑backed crop of firms — and names Turion Space and Eutelsat Network Solutions among those he has worked with — that view space as a dynamic canvas and operate on commercial timelines. He attributes to these firms a willingness to accept fixed‑price contracting, take technical risks traditional contractors avoid, and pursue commercial advantages alongside national security work. Slife frames their strengths as a coupling of "the world’s deepest and most fluid capital markets and the world’s most vibrant innovation culture."
Acquisition tools and policy levers: Commercial Solutions Openings and Other Transactions Authorities
Slife notes Congress has "given acquisition leaders the legislative cover needed to move quickly" and that Department of War senior leaders expect a "commercial‑first approach." He recommends making tools such as Commercial Solutions Openings and contracts awarded via Other Transactions Authorities the norm rather than the exception, arguing that "you get what you inspect, not what you expect." He urges policies that require justification for traditional contract pathways so program managers will default to newer acquisition mechanisms where appropriate.
What this means for program managers, Congress, and venture‑backed startups
- Program managers: Slife says they face an uncomfortable tradeoff — risking a program's cost, schedule, and performance on non‑traditional suppliers rather than defaulting to familiar primes — and he recommends using newer contracting tools to do so.
- Congress: According to Slife, lawmakers have already provided legal cover; he urges Congress and the department to codify an expectation that commercial‑first tools be the primary option, making the use of legacy pathways the justified exception.
- Venture‑backed startups and capital markets: Slife warns that without Department of War investment in the emergent sector, "private capital will flow elsewhere" and the engineering talent resident in startups will disperse, costing what he calls a generational opportunity to secure space superiority.
Slife concludes that the technology for resilient, mobile, and rapidly fieldable space capabilities "exists right now," and that the remaining obstacle is bureaucratic — the need for the Department of War to "clear the bureaucratic path and write the contracts." He applauds an administration budget he says proposes "the greatest investment growth in space capabilities since the creation of the Space Force," but leaves the onus on acquisition leaders and lawmakers to translate that budget into contracts that favor speed, resiliency, and commercial innovation.
