CSO Gen Chance Saltzman Interview

Summary

Books to Battles – CSO Gen Chance Saltzman Interview
School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS)
April 22, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this engaging episode of "Books to Battles," hosts Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb and Colonel Corey Holland welcome General Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations (CSO) for the U.S. Space Force—and notably an alumnus of SAASS (Class XIV). The discussion ranges from Saltzman’s personal and professional journey, his reflections on education at SAASS, and the foundational ideas shaping the Space Force, to the crucial challenges of integrating space into joint operations, military training, organizational growth, and the evolving relationship with the commercial sector. Throughout, Saltzman brings clarity, candor, and rich analogies to make the intricacies of modern space power accessible.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Gen. Saltzman’s Career Journey and Educational Roots

• Military Beginnings and Path to Space Force (02:08–03:36)

  • Saltzman candidly discusses entering the Air Force through ROTC to pay for college, with no military background, becoming an ICBM officer “without even knowing that some people didn’t like that.”
  • His space career began at the National Reconnaissance Office, leading to operational and leadership positions in space, including Deputy CFACC for Air Force Central Command during the stand-up of the Space Force.
  • Notable Quote:

    “I joined the military with no military history, no family connections, didn’t know what I was getting into. So when they said, are you willing to be an ICBM officer? I’m like, of course, sure. Like, not even knowing that some people didn’t like that. I thought it was great.” (02:14–02:26)

• Choosing and Reflecting on SAASS (03:40–05:14)

  • Initially unfamiliar with SAASS, Saltzman was encouraged by a professor to apply—his entrance essay argued against creating a separate Space Force.
  • Memorable Moment:

    “The question that I answered was, should there be a separate Space Force? … I argued very clearly that we should not have a separate Space Force for all the right reasons.” (04:40–04:50)

---

2. SAASS Experience: Influences and Enduring Skills

• Favorite Classes and Books (05:20–07:22)

  • Thucydides' “The Peloponnesian War” was transformative:

    “…if SAS is going to devote multiple days on one book, you know it’s a meaningful, foundational kind of book.” (05:18–05:31)

  • The Space Power class, despite feeling “disconnected” from his operational experience at the time, introduced him to the theoretical complexity of contested space—a concept that would become central to his career.

• Critical Thinking and Communication Skills (07:46–09:15)

  • Saltzman highlights that SAASS honed his abilities in critical thinking and communication—especially defending positions amidst scrutiny:

    “Can you rapidly evaluate an argument and figure out what matters most… Can I dissect this and break this argument down into its essential elements?” (08:10–08:23)

---

3. Integrating Space into Warfighting: Analogies and Evolution

• Space as “Cake, Not Icing” (09:25–11:05)

  • Space has moved from an “additive” capability to an essential, integrated foundation for the Joint Force.

    “I just like the analogy that you can’t get the eggs back out of the cake once it’s baked. … we had some questions today about, hey, should we continue to plan for if we don’t have space? It’s like planning a cake without eggs.” (10:31–10:55)

• From Merchant Marine to Navy: Facing a Contested Domain (11:23–12:38)

  • Early U.S. space operations were akin to a merchant marine—efficient, but premised on a benign environment. Transitioning to a “U.S. Navy” mindset is needed for a contested domain:

    “Converting from a Merchant Marine into a US Navy is really what the Space Force has been doing. And … once you see that, like what would it take to turn a Merchant Marine into a US Navy? It’s different equipment, it’s different training… it becomes about effectiveness.” (11:33–12:16)

---

4. Partnership with the Commercial Sector

• Space Force and Commercial Industry (13:19–15:02)

  • Saltzman describes the deep and historic partnership between government and industry in launch and space services, noting the government’s role in funding early commercial capabilities.
  • He distinguishes between capabilities the government must own (e.g., nuclear command and control) and those better left to commercial markets (e.g., wideband data transmission).

    “If the government’s going to buy it, it’s going to cost three times as much money. So what kind of services can we get... we preserve some things for government ownership ... but just wideband moving of data, maybe that is something that’s a commercial service.” (14:22–14:57)

• Strategic Implications of Commercial Reliance (15:02–17:22)

  • On protecting commercial assets:

    “Does that mean that our distilleries are viable military targets? Absolutely. Do we have a responsibility to protect them? Well, that’s not the word I would pick. We have an interest in protecting them because we rely on them…” (16:01–16:15)

---

5. Training, Readiness, and Organizational Maturation

• Force Generation and Training Models (17:43–19:57)

  • Past training focused on “procedural currency”; now, operators must be ready for a contested environment through advanced tactics, simulated adversaries, and dedicated training cycles.

    “Being procedurally current in operating spacecraft was all we needed. … So we built a force generation model that actually gave our crews time to come out of commit phase ... and then devote to training for a contested environment...” (18:17–19:24)

• Normalizing the Space Force and Progress in Joint Operations (19:57–24:13)

  • Key strides in integrating Space Force components into combatant commands and normalizing participation in operations.

    “The only organizations that conduct war fighting activities are service organizations. … services actually do the warfighting activities. They just do it under the authorities of combatant commanders...” (20:26–20:49)

  • Direct impacts observed in recent operations (Venezuela, Epic Fury) where space effects are “vital components” from the outset.

• Transparency about Space Operations

  “I don’t want to underestimate the fact that I’ve over time had to keep saying that’s not classified. We don’t have to protect that. This is something that can be known and it doesn’t create vulnerabilities …” (22:19–22:40)

---

6. Multi-Domain Operations and Coalition Learning

• From “Fairy Dust” to Leading Edge (22:45–24:13)
  • Multi-domain operations now integrate space and cyber from planning through execution—a shift from earlier models where they were “sprinkled in.”

    “If you could draw the arrows on the map for space and cyber, you would see them as leading edge to the force that goes into these campaigns.” (23:23–23:34)

  • Lessons from IndoPACOM exercises are shaping current operations in CENTCOM and, increasingly, U.S. European Command and allied doctrine.

---

7. Space Force Accomplishments and Challenges Ahead

• Building a New Service from the Ground Up (25:34–27:23)

  • Saltzman reflects with pride on the rapid growth and establishment of the Space Force, likening the multifaceted process to “building a house”:

    “With the exception of 86 lieutenants … I was employee number three. … So from employee number three to a force of 10,000 active duty … I’m just proud of all of the work that was done all at the same time.” (25:53–27:18)

• Resource and Growth “Champagne Problems” (27:30–29:02)

  • The largest challenges ahead are managing explosive growth, training pipeline expansion, and responsibly executing a research-heavy budget.

    “It’s always better to be struggling to spend the money… than it is to try to field systems without the money to do it. … our training pipelines are still heavily dependent on smaller pipelines in the Air Force …” (27:57–28:45)

---

8. Conceptualizing Space as a Warfighting Domain

• When Did Space Become a Warfighting Domain? (29:14–32:28)

  • No single date, but the 2007 Chinese ASAT test was a turning point:

    “…my experience when the Chinese launched the Asat against the Fang Yang in 2007, there became no more discussion that we were going to have to fight to preserve our capabilities in space. … we have counter space capabilities… In my mind there was no going back from that point.” (29:25–30:44)

  • Discussion relates the development of domain concepts in air, mirroring scholarly debates.

• Electromagnetic Spectrum as a Critical Front (32:28–34:09)

  • The Space Force is prioritizing mastery and control of the EM spectrum, with a forthcoming doctrine document (“future operating environment”) emphasizing this imperative.

---

9. Leadership, Education, and Lifelong Learning

• Advice for SAASS Students and Strategic Thinkers (34:26–35:35)

  • Cherish the unique opportunity for deep, critical study at SAASS—use and practice those skills continually post-graduation.

    “What I wouldn’t give for a year just to read books and think about things and share ideas with people… What a gift.” (34:28–34:38) “Try to read a book a day every now and then. … You’re trying to extract the argument.” (35:03–35:20)

• Current Reading & The Value of Generalists (35:35–37:25)

  • Saltzman recommends Range by David Epstein and extols the value of generalists in solving complex, cross-disciplinary problems—an outlook highly relevant to military leaders.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “I argued very clearly that we should not have a separate Space Force for all the right reasons.” (04:44)
• “If SAS is going to devote multiple days on one book, you know it’s a meaningful, foundational kind of book.” (05:26)
• “Critical thinking and communications in writing… if anybody undervalues either of those, they don’t understand how military leadership works.” (07:51–08:01)
• “You can’t get the eggs back out of the cake once it’s baked.” (10:37)
• "Converting from a Merchant Marine into a US Navy is really what the Space Force has been doing." (11:33)
• “Does the government rely on commercial capabilities… in the performance of its national security responsibilities? To the degree the answer is yes, then of course we will protect our interests…” (16:15–16:28)
• “We built a force generation model… to training for a contested environment, go against an aggressor force, practice tactics…” (18:38–19:24)
• “No service can say that, not in the last couple of centuries… As a Service, we’ve grown 10 to 20% every single year of our existence.” (27:15)
• “We’re very enamored with our specialists… the big problems we face, that’s less useful than the broader perspectives that an education can provide.” (37:11–37:25)

---

Closing Thought

General Saltzman’s remarks underscore the fusion of intellectual rigor and operational adaptation that characterizes the modern Space Force. From analogies that illuminate the stakes of integration to candid insights on leadership, growth challenges, and strategic education, this episode is a masterclass in bridging theory and practice in the domain of air and space power.

---

Segment Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------| | Introduction & Gen. Saltzman’s Background | 00:52–03:36 | | SAASS Experience & Lessons | 03:40–09:15 | | Space Integration Analogies | 09:25–12:38 | | Commercial Industry and Strategy | 13:19–17:22 | | Training & Operational Maturation | 17:43–24:13 | | Organizational Growth & Challenges | 25:34–29:02 | | Warfighting Domain Debate | 29:14–32:28 | | EM Spectrum & Doctrine | 32:28–34:09 | | Leadership, Lifelong Learning, Reading | 34:26–37:25 |

---

For anyone vested in the intersection of strategy, education, and space operations, this is a must-listen—and the summary captures the episode’s essential wisdom, candor, and inspiration.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to books, to Battles, where we explore academic insights for real world air and space strategy. I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb, professor of Strategy and Security Studies and Deputy Commandant at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.

[B]

And I'm Colonel Corey Holland, professor of Strategy and Security Studies, also at sas. Before we get any further, we want to note that all opinions expressed here are ours or our guests and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or war, or the United States government.

[C]

We have got a really exciting interview to bring to you guys this week.

[A]

We had the pleasure of speaking with General Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations for the Space Force, the second one.

[C]

And we had a really great discussion with him that we are really pleased to bring you this week. So.

[A]

So please enjoy. Joining us today is General Chance Salzman, who is the Chief of Space Operations. We are very honored to have him here as chief. He serves as the senior uniformed Space Force officer responsible for the organization, training and equipping of all organic and assigned space forces serving in the United States and overseas. General Saltzman is a graduate of Boston University and was commissioned in 1991. He has operational experience with missile and space systems as a Minuteman 3 launch

[C]

officer and as a satellite operator for the National Reconnaissance Office.

[A]

He is commanded at the squadron, group and wing levels. And he was Deputy Chief of Space Operations for. For Operations Cyber and Nuclear before becoming cso.

[C]

So thank you, General Saltzman, for joining us. It's truly an honor to have you on. And he is probably most important to our audience. A Saskrat.

[D]

It's true.

[C]

Yes. XIV so class 14, we figured out. Yeah.

[A]

So.

[C]

So that is, I think, for our audience, especially exciting. So welcome on.

[B]

It's great to have you and welcome back. That's true.

[C]

Welcome back to sass.

[B]

Yeah. So tell us a little bit about yourself and your career. How did you. How did you find yourself where you are now?

[D]

Well, I mean, it's a story that I think everybody. A lot of people tell. It was a way to pay for college.

[B]

Right.

[D]

And so ROTC got me to Boston University and. And so I joined the military with no military history, no family connections, didn't know what I was getting into. So when they said, are you willing to be an ICBM officer? I'm like, of course, sure. Like, not even knowing that. Some people didn't like that. I thought it was great. And So I did four years in ICBMs before switching over. I went to the National Reconnaissance Office. That was my first space job, and I did. I've done now two tours in the NRO and been space kind of my whole career through 30 years in the Air Force, almost 30 years. I was a weapons school graduate and that kind of led me down several different paths. And then I was a SAS graduate and that got me thinking about AOC operations in particular, where I was Chief Plans and Chief of Ops and many deployments to the AOCs around the world. And, you know, my culminating position in the Air Force was the deputy CFAC for Air Force's Central Command, 2019-2020. And I deployed. And while I was over there, they stood up this thing called the Space Force. And so when I came back, I'm like, what does this mean?

[C]

Where do I belong?

[D]

Where do I belong? And so I was nominated to be the first three. That's the, that long duty title you read there is really just the S3 on the space staff. And so I did that before I was no nominated for the, the Chief job.

[C]

And now you've been in it for almost four years.

[D]

It's true.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Yep.

[C]

Well, you know, obviously we'll, we'll start off some questions. What about sas? And then we'll definitely talk about your time in the Space Force and in cso. But what got you to sas? What got you interested? What made you want to come here?

[D]

I, I've always liked school and I think my experience at ACSC was a, was kind of a break in the action as a young major. And I really enjoyed just the reading and digging in and arguing with classmates and, and I had no idea what SAS was. I just didn't have any previous experience with people that had been. And, and I heard people started talking about this, we're going to, are you going to apply for sas? I'm like, I don't really know what you're talking about. Jim Forsyth was one of my professors at acsc, and, and he's the one that said, yeah, you, you'd like it, you should apply. And so I did. And interesting enough, my, you know, the little writing sample you have to, you could pick from one of two questions. The question that I answered was, should there be a separate Space Force?

[C]

And I've, I've heard this story before. I believe your answer was no.

[D]

I argued very clearly that we should not have a separate Space Force for all the right reasons.

[B]

I'm sure that we don't have that anywhere.

[D]

No. Or no. Or can't imagine, uh, why that happened. So, yeah, so I, I, it, it was just A continuation of school. Because I really enjoyed those kind of debates and reading. And they say it's, it's a lot of reading.

[C]

I'm like, well, you were a history major.

[D]

Yeah, let's go. And I, it just a tremendous experience. I was really fortunate that I was able to go.

[B]

And so we're going to put you on the spot a little bit. And this one, something we do with all of our students and graduates.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

Favorite class? Favorite book?

[D]

Yeah, you know, it is hard to beat the early classes. You know, the work with Thucydides, it's just something I'd never been exposed to. You know, I'm a history major, but not that far back. And Hal Winston, you know, was the guru that was around at the time. And to hear him talk about Thucydides and, and that's one of the few books where we spend multiple days on. We did. I assume that's true. And that just tells you that you can talk about other great books. But man, if SAS is going to devote multiple days on one book, you know, it's a meaningful, foundational kind of book. And I find myself going back. I gave a talk at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference where the centerpiece of my talk was about Thucydides and fear, honor and interest and why nations go to war and how we have to prepare and keep our military safe. So it just lessons that have always been applicable throughout my career.

[A]

Favorite class?

[D]

You know, we did have the Space Power class. It was kind of new. EV Doleman taught it. And I remember thinking, this isn't my space experience. I remember being disconnected from it because I felt like, you know, ICBMs were space at the time. We did a lot of work with missile warning and obviously gps, but we were talking about space power using all the air terminology. I just remember feeling like I'd never thought about it in those terms. And so when I think back now, that was pretty influential. It got me thinking, like, wait a minute, if we have to contest this, do we have a theory? Do we understand how do the things that apply with air power, will they apply to space power, or will there be something fundamentally different about it? So I, I, it sounds maybe, you know, overly simplistic to say, oh, now chief of space operations, like space power. But that was really a, a first time I even thought about a contested domain because we were just not the way we talked about it.

[B]

So when you, when you left SAS and then you, you went back out into the operational force, what were the lessons that you took out there. Cause I can imagine that you step into some kind of a leadership position. You're not handing out SAS books and saying, okay, we're going to have a discussion on this, but what were the lessons that you took that you applied in your career going forward?

[D]

Well, the two skills that I always tell people that I feel like were either developed or honed at SAS were critical thinking and communications in writing. And if anybody undervalues either of those, they don't understand how military leadership works. And I took those. I took the feedback, I took the scrutiny on perspectives. Can you defend your position? That is such an easy thing to say. And it is so much harder in practice when you have to sit there with your peers and say, this is what I think, and this is why I think it, and hear their input and hear and defend yourself. And you do that for a year, you're just going to get better at it. And so, you know, the critical thinking. Can I rapidly evaluate an argument and figure out what matters most about that argument? That when I think of critical thinking, that's what I think about. How can I dissect this and break this argument down into its essential elements? And then do I have a position on it? Do I agree or disagree? And then when I do, can I explain it to somebody else's satisfaction and then do it in writing?

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And SAS gives you so many reps and sets on. On those skills that it just. I, I use them. I use them every day after that. There's no doubt about it. And, and I, probably, because I had the foundation, every job experience where I was using continued to make them better and better and better.

[C]

I think that comes across in a lot of the work that you've done the past couple of years, especially in communicating with the public, the value, not, not just the value of the space force, but that one exists.

[D]

Right?

[C]

Right.

[D]

Yeah, we gotta start there.

[C]

Yeah. And so, you know, I've often heard in your talks to the public, your use of analogies, which, again, I think, you know, maybe stems back to thinking about space in some of these domain analogies. But one of the ones that you often use is the analogy of baking a cake, that space is not just the icing on the top anymore, because

[D]

it used to be. You know, I think that for most of my career, icing, it was the icing on the cake. It was the thing that we knew it made it better, but you could add it at the end, you could add it on. And I think those of us that were on the Inside recognized that there were missed opportunities because we weren't considered early enough. We weren't integrated. We were additive. And that's different. It's different in war fighting. And you say you're a part of the Joint Force, but if you're just at it on the end, you're. It doesn't feel like you're a part of the Joint Force. I think that was, at its essence, what the. Maybe the fatal flaw of space inside another service was. And this is nobody's fault. This is. I mean, the Air Force needs to focus on the air, so it makes perfect sense why it would be like that. But since there's been a space force, we've elevated that focus to the point where I do think we're integrated. And I just like the analogy that you can't get the eggs back out of the cake once it's baked. It just. And that's why, you know, we had some questions today about, hey, hey, should we continue to plan for if we don't have space? It's like planning a cake without eggs. Like, you know, there might be some versions of it, but it doesn't taste very good. And so I, I think that's been an analogy that's paid off because I think it does kind of set the stage for how much we need to be integrated.

[C]

Have you found any other ways that you've explained sort of the importance of space? Because one of the things I research is public opinion on space exploration. And I, you know, it's pretty dismal, or at least public awareness of space and, and why it's important generally. Sarah, have you found any other useful ways of talking to the public about.

[D]

The other analogy that I have is not as much about the utility of space, but it's about the challenge that fate that the Space Force faces. And I think it's a pretty good analogy, and I said it, that space inside the Air Force was a little like the Merchant Marine. We delivered services presuming a benign environment, and we got very efficient at delivering those services. But the minute you have a contested domain, a merchant Marine are not going to secure sea lanes. You need a U.S. navy. And so converting from a Merchant Marine into a US Navy is really what the Space Force has been doing. And I think once you see that, like, what would it take to turn a Merchant Marine into a US Navy? It's different equipment, it's different training, it's different operational concepts. It's new doctrine, it's new thought processes, it's new authorities, and all of that is true. It's different manpower. It's not about efficiency. It becomes about effectiveness. And so I think the follow on things that have to be done, that's been a pretty good analogy to describe that transformation and also gives us a little bit of grace in terms of. And it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be cheap any more so than converting a merchant marine to a Navy. Sometimes I use a commercial airline into

[C]

a US Air Force, but I've written about, yeah. Sort of early commercial aviation and how that sort of has a great analogy for what we're doing with commercial space today. That's another one that I like.

[B]

Yeah, it's interesting that you, you talk about that analogy of turning a merchant Marine into the United States Navy because we're still in some ways as a country relying on this space merchant marine, the commercial space. And we have outsourced almost all of our lift capability, minus the Artemis, which is coming back today, I believe, this evening. So how do you, as the chief of space operations, relate to the commercial sector and what is that relationship like?

[D]

Yeah, I think spacelift is a perfect example. And with the exception of NASA, the military has never really built rockets. We built for spacelift. Yes, you know, Titan has its history and men to man and all those things are icm, but we kind of were progressing pretty quickly to what we wanted those to do very particularly. So we've always had a relationship with industry in the launch business, but don't think for a second that it wasn't government funding that propped up that industry when there wasn't really a commercial market. Everything from the infrastructure for safety, public safety associated with launches, to funding the science and technology and the development of the rocket engines, and that's all government funding. It was done under commercial auspices because they could pull more engineers in and pay them better than we could, quite frankly. So I think it was a good relationship and I think that, you know, might be the model to think about is what, what can we rely on commercial industry to do because they can do it better. Where are there markets that we can take advantage of? If there's a market commercial, you're not going to beat the commercial industry. And satellite communications now, I think, is a perfect example. What is it that is the commercial market that we should be taking advantage of and not trying to procure for ourselves. If the government's going to buy it, it's going to cost three times as much money. So what kind of services can we get? And I think that's what we're going through now is how do we organize our thinking so that we preserve some things for government ownership. To use the analogy, maybe nuclear command and control is something that we want to have our hands in a little tighter but just wideband moving of data, maybe that is something that's a commercial service. And so we're trying to sort through all of that to get the most of commercial industry.

[B]

Well, I think that it also has knock on effects for things like strategy and grand strategy and policy in that now you have a US Based company that is global, that has a, an asset in space in the global commons. What responsibility does the United States government have for protecting it? And what responsibility should we have if somebody shoots it? And do we, is that an act of war or is there, you know, what are the vulnerabilities of relying on commercials, commercial entities for that? I don't want to get into that topic. I know that's all. That's way, way deeper than we were, we were trying to go.

[D]

Sure, yeah. Insurance companies aside, I, I do think it's worth saying let's, let's, let's not presume that space is radically different than some other domains. We just got to think about a little differently. Meaning the US Government doesn't distill its own jet fuel. We don't distribute, we don't own the distribution network to bring the, the most you can say we do is store it. That's, that's, that's the part that the government does. So does that mean that our distilleries are viable military targets? Absolutely. Do we have a responsibility to protect them? Well, that's not the word I would pick. We have an interest in protecting them because we rely on them to provide jet fuel for our military operations. That's the way I think we should be thinking about this. Is it in the interest, does the government rely on commercial capabilities, commercial companies, commercial assets in the performance of its national security responsibilities? To the degree that the answer is yes, then of course we will protect our interests in the same way that fuel and fuel distribution would, would, would fall under that category. There's, there's a healthy relationship in all of the domains for using commercial capabilities where it makes sense because there's a commercial market and fuel is one that I've is another analogy that I've used to kind of, you know, demonstrate that I see us progressing in that way. If it's really important, government's going to own it, government's going to protect it. If it's, if we Rely on the service. We're going to have to figure out how to protect that as well, because we can't live without the service if that's, if that's where we're getting that capability from. It's just part of the calculus.

[B]

So when you took over, in addition to sort of, I don't want to say correcting, but at least getting the right mindset out into the public and into the joint Force, what are some of the other things that you were thinking about? And as you stepped up into this chief of space operations, one of the

[D]

big ones was something that had kind of been simmering under the surface for a while. And as the first three was high on my mind is are we ready to operate in a contestant environment? Boy, that's an easy phrase to just roll off your tongue. But for the war fighters, they know all of the details that go into that. And so here's an interesting kind of maybe description of the way it was versus the way we're trying to progress to now. When space was largely a benign environment, our training focused on procedural currency, meaning could you run the procedures to safely and effectively operate the weapons system? If I was using an Air Force analogy, it would be, it's a little like white jet training is can you take off and land and do you have good airmanship and can you work the radio and you know, can you do procedurally what it takes to fly an airplane? And then we stopped there where the Air Force has to go further into the combat skills and the follow on training to actually make them combat ready. Being procedurally current in operating spacecraft was all we needed. So we just repeated UPT over and over and over again. That was our training cycle. You were largely able to do it with the crews while they were deployed in place. You just, you have a training day, then you go back onto cruise shift. And so that's not going to be sufficient to operate the tactics, the procedures against a red force. So think of all the things we do in the Air Force to train for combat operations. The red flags and the, the range work that we do, the 2v2 setups that fighter pilots have to go through, and all of the training that we do on a day to basis to be ready for combat operations. Well, we didn't even have the time to do it because our folks were just right there in crew all the time. So we built a force generation model that actually gave our crews time to come out of commit phase, come out of day to day operations, and then devote to training for A contested environment, go against an aggressor force, practice tactics that you don't do on a day to day basis. And so that force generation model has now upped the training level of our operators so that if we end up in a contestant environment, they will have practiced the tactics, they will have practiced skills against a thinking adversary and will know how to respond. That's been a big shift.

[C]

One of the other things I remember when you first took over as CSO is one of your things you were focusing on was normalizing the fact that there is a space force and making it a normal part, accepted part. Do you think you've made progress in that?

[D]

I do. It's funny when I look back now because things that are so obvious now, we really had to fight for, we had to argue for the need for service components in the combatant commands. And I always felt like it was hilarious. They said, well, why do you think that's true? And I say, I don't think it's true. Joint Pub one tells me it's true. Joint Pub one is very clear that the services present forces through service components to the combatant commands. The thing I say for shock value to some of the audiences I do is I say the only organizations that conduct war fighting activities are service organizations. We like to talk about joint organizations doing that. No, it's service organizations. Joint organizations are headquarters and headquarters. Do planning headquarters have authorities to direct. But then they turn it over to service components which are service organizations. And joint pub one is very clear that says the combatant commands will use the services the way they were designed to fight and use the tactics developed by the service services actually do the warfighting activities. They just do it under the authorities of combatant commanders under the auspices of a joint force. And so I felt like I was arguing to comply with our doctrine. And then once we kind of got over that hump and we started putting the service components out there, it was like, I don't know how we could not do this. What they're doing in central command right now is amazing. And I hear from Brad Cooper all the time that they're integral to the fight. They are a part of men force package on almost everything that happens. So to think about space units as being a part of the minforce package is encouraging. But I know that we couldn't do that if we didn't have those components fully integrated. And that's an example of something that

[C]

really made progress that has stood out to me in both after both the Venezuela operation and now Operation Epic fury is that leadership has specifically said space has been a vital component and has actually gone in and done those space effects before the fighting has even kicked off. So I have noticed that after these recent operations that has become.

[D]

Yeah. And I don't want to underestimate the fact that I've over time had to keep saying that's not classified. We don't have to protect that. This is something that can be known and it doesn't create vulnerabilities we have to overcome. That's been a little bit of an uphill battle as well. Everybody wants to say all space is classified. You can't talk about it. No, no, no. We participate. You don't have to go to the tactical level. You don't have to explain the beeps and squeaks. You just say we're involved. And I think we're making progress here as well.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

And some. I've done some work and continue to do some work on multi domain operations.

[D]

And I find a lot of times

[B]

multi domain operations is joint with a little bit of space and cyber sprinkled in as the fairy dust right there at the end. How are you getting after those changes in joint doctrine and those kinds of changes in the joint war fighting concept as an example?

[D]

Yeah, I think as time goes on and the academics can dig into the realities of our current operations, I think you'll find that multi domain operations is not the sprinkling in anymore. I do think there's been substantial progress that it is not after the fact. It is not sprinkling. Literally. It's okay. This has to happen before we can do this. Who's able to do that initial action? It's space and cyber. It's a part of. If you could draw the arrows on the map for space and cyber, you would see them as leading edge to the, the force that goes into these campaigns. Current ops, we're always a little bit close. Hold on. Exactly. I think it'll unfold as all these operations do over time and you'll get a little more of a sense how that we really have made progress. And I give the service components credit. They are right there from day one in the planning. In cyber effects and space effects, special operations effects, those used to kind of be treated separately as well. They're fully integrated. That triad is really being fully integrated in a way that we didn't see 10, 12 years ago.

[B]

Do you think that's happening obviously in CENTCOM right now? You think the other geographic combatant commanders are learning from CENTCOM and starting to develop those same kinds of interrelationships.

[D]

A lot of the things we're applying in CENTCOM were first learned in exercises in Indo pacom. Admiral Poparo is a huge believer in this. He stood up several non kinetic effects teams that centrally are dealing with space and cyber, in particular electronic warfare more broadly. So a lot of the things that we learned and putting into practice, we actually learned through indopacom. So that I can tell you for sure, eucom, where we have a substantial presence as well, we are contributing. Obviously the fight in Ukraine is a nuanced fight. It's support, it's not direct action. NATO is always complicating on those matters as well as you think about how we operate. But progress still being made to incorporate space into those plans. We have a combined Space Operations Initiative. 10 nations that come together and talk about the space. A lot of them are the NATO countries. They have all recognized and declared space as a war fighting domain, which is not an inconsequential determination, so moving in the right direction. But we are learning those in other areas.

[A]

So looking back in your time as

[C]

CSO or even over the course of Space Force's history, what do you see as your biggest accomplishments?

[D]

I don't know. There's not like a smoking gun like, man, we did it. We got this across the finish line because so much had to be done. What's the biggest accomplishment when your house is finally built? It was just a field, green field, and now it's a full house. What's the biggest accomplishment? It's all of it. You know, you have to lay the foundation. The plumbing's got to be there, the electricity. Yeah, you can brag about the color of the walls and the granite countertops or whatever, but all of that has to come together. So what I'm most proud of is how much we've been able to do. With the exception of 86 lieutenants that were commissioned in May out of the Air force Academy of 2020. I was employee number three. So General Raymond, then Chief Toberman, 86 lieutenants, newly minted, and then me on the 1st of August, and that was six years ago. So from employee number three to a force of 10,000 active duty, another 16,000 by the time or another 6,000 when you add the civilians in. We had to do all of those hiring actions. So I mean, you think about the scale of what we grew. Yes, 16,000 is modest by other service standards. But you say, yeah, as a Service, we've grown 10 to 20% every single year of our existence. No service can say that, not in the last couple of centuries has been able to say that. And so I'm just proud of all of the work that was done all at the same time. All while we continue to provide world class PNT and military SATCOM and missile warning. Like none of that stopped and we still grew the service.

[C]

What do you think are the biggest challenges your successor will face?

[D]

Well, so one, I'm very hopeful that they will struggle to spend all the money we're going to get.

[C]

That's a good problem to have.

[D]

It's a good problem to have, but it's not inconsequential.

[B]

We've got some units here that you should fund, sir. Yeah, it's help us out. I mean I'm happy to, happy to take a trip to wherever you want to send us. We will take the entire school there. Your requirements will do.

[D]

So. Yeah, about 60% of our budget is an RDT and E. No other service has that level of RDT and E. That means contracts and that means working with the industry. And if we don't get that appropriation until February or March, then you got six months to spend a tremendous amount of money and get. I don't know that we have the contracting officers to do it. So this is going to be a challenge, but these are champagne problems. It's always better to be struggling to spend the money been appropriated than it is to try to field systems without the money to do it. So these are good problems to have, but there's going to be a struggle to get that right. And then second is we know we have to grow in size because the missions are requiring it, but our training pipelines are still heavily dependent on smaller pipelines in the Air Force that's also trying to grow. And so we're going to have to rapidly expand the training pipeline to then rapidly expand the service. And so the next CSO will have to figure out exactly how to do that at scale and very rapidly.

[B]

I have a student who is writing a paper on space and so it would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity. There is a good chance we will cut this based upon what your answer is.

[C]

We said that in the Space Power episode and we left our discussion of it in.

[B]

Right. When did space become a war fighting domain?

[D]

Okay, it's a good question because it requires a little bit of precision because I don't know if there's like a definitive. If somebody signs this document, it's officially declared a war fighting domain. I don't believe a document exists that you could point to a date. But I will tell you that my experience when the Chinese launched the Asat against the Fang Yang in 2007, there became no more discussion that we were going to have to fight to preserve our capabilities in space. Within my recollection is that was a fall launch. You guys have to check me on that. Sometime in the fall of 2007. By the spring of 2008, StratCom was ready to shoot down a defunct NRO satellite for strategic messaging as well as public safety. I'm not going to discount that there was a legitimate reason but that timing was not like. So we say oh, you think you can contest space? We have some capabilities as well. So within three or four months there 2007, early 2008 we were demonstrating that we have counter space capabilities that could deny an adversary of the use of space. In my mind there was no going back from that point.

[B]

So it's right around there.

[D]

I think that's when I would say we were on a path to the space force. We were on a path to requiring space control.

[C]

Now I will say one of the books we read for space Power, you can refer your student back to which is Bled and Bowen who said space is on always been a war fighting domain.

[B]

And I think that holding those two things in tension is something that, that we'll all have to do.

[D]

What's the answer in the air?

[B]

What's that?

[D]

What's the answer in the air?

[B]

When did the air become a war fighting domain? Before the World War I?

[D]

It was before World War I. So when, when a military was using.

[B]

Right. Military use of. Of air. A powered flight for powered flight. Because if you want to say, just say went into the air then you've got balloons back in the 1860s. Right.

[C]

Which is more his. So he.

[B]

I'm a, I'm a historian, I got a PhD in early America which is really relevant to you know, the Advanced Air and Space School. But yeah, so I think about late 18th, early 19th century stuff professionally. But yeah. When did it become a war fighting domain? When I think it would be when we actually started having not necessarily effects used from the air but when it started being contested in the domain itself. So when air airplanes started fighting other airplanes and I think that that would be. That's why probably World War I.

[D]

That's why I think this attack on this demonstration of capability to conduct that in. In the. In the domain was important because it's not. Yeah we've had satellite jamming but the consequence of an attack like that is on the ground, right? There's, there's something you're stopping from getting to where it needs to be. That's where the effect is. So the actual of actually doing something on orbit is why I would grab.

[B]

So the way that I sort of frame it is, and it was in your slides earlier, it's this access control exploit sort of framework. And I say that once you start contesting the control, that's when it's war fighting, right? Because I can contest access or exploitation and without really having anybody to fight. But once I start contesting control, now I am trying to limit somebody else's ability to do that and that's when it becomes war fighting. Speaking of which, though, in order to access and or exploit the space domain, you have to have access to the electromagnetic spectrum. And now how far is the Space Force stepping into trying to gain control of the ems? At least temporarily and geographically maybe limited, but control in order to be able to continue that access and exploitation, we've,

[D]

we've always described three segments that are required. There's the on orbit segment, there's the link segment, and there's the ground segment. Data's got to come down, it's got to go somewhere, whether it's a receiver or move through of terrestrial networks to be useful, to really get the most out of exploitation and access. And so we take the electromagnetic spectrum very seriously. I'll give you a little bit of a scoop here in the next couple of weeks after space symposium. So that's end of next week, we're going to publish what we call the future operating environment. And I think you will see the electromagnetic spectrum heavily prominent in that document. If we don't understand it, control it, and have expertise and capabilities to protect and deny and all this and they're not going to be successful. The link structure is paramount. That's great.

[C]

Well, we know you are very busy, so we won't take up much more of your time. Just one question left, and that is what advice would you give to current SAS students, future SAS students, or just those who are interested in thinking strategically more generally?

[D]

I always think of my time at SAS as a real gift. What I wouldn't give for a year just to read books and think about things and share ideas with people like a year to do that. What a gift. So I hope the current students in the next class don't take it for granted. I hope they see it as the gift that it is time to think. Like I said, what I wouldn't give for more time to think. And then what I would say is make sure you practice the skills that you leave SAS with because they can go away. Keep reading. Try to read a book a day every now and then. There's some books I like to read because I like words and I just find my. It's just comforting to kind of read a book. Right. Sometimes I just want to know what the author has to say. So I forced myself to read that book in one day. I do because it's a skill. I mean, because what you're not really reading the book, you're trying to extract the argument.

[B]

Right.

[D]

I don't care how he wrote. I'm not writing a book review. I want to know what this author has to say about this subject. And I'll give myself a day to do it. And I get through it. And I think if you practice those skills, you can keep it up. If you don't, they kind of go away a little.

[C]

Well, now you've goaded me into a follow up question too. What I said was the last question, which was, what are you reading right now?

[D]

The book that's got me really fired up is this book called Range. And the author's name escapes me, but it won't be hard. It's pretty current. The subtitle is Something to the effect of why Generalists Succeed in a Specialized World. And the idea that the problems we face, while they might need some specialists, they're not. The problems are going to be solved by specialists because it takes cross discipline approaches. It takes somebody with a different.

[C]

Like having a history degree.

[D]

Having a history degree, exactly. And so this idea of education, not training, I think of specialists requiring training and generalists require education. How to think about something is more important than what you're thinking about. And it. So I just, I've gotten a lot out of that book because I'm. I'm trying to figure out the training and education that we need to put into our guardians to make them most successful. And it's really for officers and leading in the space domain. If they don't understand intelligence operations in terms of the threat, if they don't understand cyber operations, they don't understand the space domain, they don't understand all of that. They can't be affected. And so breadth is going to be important. I think this idea of a generalist as being a value added to an organization is something that we got to think about. We're very. My history in the Air Force, we're very enamored with our specialists. We love SMEs. We love functional expertise. We like to talk about do you have a star or a wreath or how many hours do you have like that? You know, that's the coin of the realm is depth in areas. And I'm finding that the big problems we face, that's less useful than the broader perspectives that an education can provide,

[C]

which is also very relevant to what we do, our mission here at sas. So I think our SAS students and others will get. We get a great deal out of that book.

[A]

So thank you so much, General Saltzman,

[C]

for being with us today. It's really been an honor and pleasure.

[A]

Congratulations.

[B]

Yeah. And congratulations. Absolutely. Congratulations on your.

[C]

And best of luck and we hope you'll remain a supporter of what we do here.

[D]

Yeah, I'll even come back non uniform if you haven't.

[C]

You could maybe you could come become our third co host.

[B]

Love it. All right, thanks.

[C]

Thank you, sir.

[D]

Thank you.

[A]

Thank you for tuning in to books to battles. We hope you enjoyed today's discussion. If you liked today's episode, please be sure to like and subscribe and even tell a friend about us. Also, don't forget to send us any questions you'd like answered or or suggest future episodes. You can contact us at bookstobattlesu af edu For Colonel Corey Holland, I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb. And don't forget, strategy doesn't stop at the page.