Both the establishment of the new U.S. Space Force and that agency’s SATCOM vision are based on a universal understanding that the space domain is no longer an uncontested, benign environment for our military. Our adversaries today are increasingly capable of blocking, jamming or attacking satellites – making it possible for them to deny the technological and strategic advantage that space resources have delivered to the warfighter in the past.

The new NDAA, the new Space Force, and the new SATCOM vision are a reaction and answer to this new reality and new challenge in space.

Aside from the establishment of the Space Force, how does the new NDAA impact the way the military acquires satellite resources? What exactly is in that new SATCOM vision that will defend military satellite capabilities? How does the establishment of the Space Force change the way military interacts and engages with the commercial space and satellite industries?

Jon Bennett, the Vice President for Government Affairs, Marketing and Corporate Communications at SES Space and Defense, recently joined the Government Technology Insider Podcast to educate listeners about this and other topics. During his discussion with GTI Podcast host, Peter Jacobs, Jon talked about the provisions in the new NDAA, the revolutionary approach laid out in the Space Force SATCOM vision and the ways that the military is transforming how it approaches space and the acquisition of space resources.

Click the PLAY button below to listen to their conversation.

For additional information on the role that next generation commercial satellites can play in delivering essential government applications and communications, click HERE.

The post PODCAST – how the 2020 NDAA and Space Force revolutionize the military’s approach to space appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Another historical “first “ happened shortly after, when Vice President Mike Pence swore in Gen. John “Jay” Raymond, the former Commander of the Air Force Space Command, as the Space Force’s first-ever Chief of Space Operations. According to Military.com, he will be joined by the, “Roughly 16,000 active-duty and civilian personnel that make up Air Force Space Command.”

And, while many late-night television pundits have mocked the creation of the Space Force – the need for a Space Force is no laughing matter. In fact, it’s something that has been a common topic of conversation in the space and satellite industry for more than a decade.

Making the case for a Space Force
Since 2007, when China demonstrated its ability to successfully destroy a satellite in orbit with a kinetic attack, there has been one universal theme that we have heard reflected in the comments from industry and military speakers at every satellite and space conference and exposition – space is no longer a benign environment.

This sentiment was reflected in comments by Gen. Raymond, himself, who once said, “There’s great alignment in our nation today that space is a warfighting domain, just like air, land and sea… [we’re] at a strategic inflection point and that’s a point where we used to operate in a benign domain, but today we’re operating in a contested domain.”

The concept of space being a contested environment is not a welcome one for the military, which has long held a technological edge over its adversaries largely in thanks to U.S. assets in space. As Col. Steve Butow, the Space Portfolio Director at the Defense Innovation Unit, once said, “…we use technology as our offset. If we lose our technological offset, we have to fight a fair fight, and that’s not what we want to do. We want to have technological capabilities that keep us in a dominant position in all domains.” And many of those technological offsets are only available to the warfighter thanks to satellites.

Military intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations rely on space resources. Military communications travel over satellites to get to American warfighters deployed in places with no terrestrial networks, or where terrestrial networks are untrusted or denied. Satellites are even essential for military position, navigation and timing (PNT).

Understanding the role satellite plays in successful military operations and that our satellites are vulnerable to attack and interference from adversaries makes the necessity for the Space Force clear. This new branch of the military will train a new generation of space professionals and acquire the space capabilities and technologies needed to compete in a new warfighting domain and maintain our technological offset.

This is clearly reflected in the Space Force’s mission statement:

The USSF is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.

And there’s one part of that mission statement that has the space and satellite industry the most excited – the part about the Space Force being responsible for “acquiring military space systems.”

A single authority for space acquisition?
The Space Force just launched and it’s expected to be officially stood up over the course of the next 18 months. It’s still early, and it’s hard for any industry pundits on the outside looking in to say exactly how its creation will impact the way in which the military interacts with the satellite industry.

However, there is some optimism across the satellite industry that having a dedicated military branch with the responsibility of acquiring space systems and resources could help to ensure a better working relationship between the military and private industry.

Traditionally, the military has relied on purpose-build, custom satellite solutions that it finances, launches and manages itself to meet its needs for space capabilities. However, as we’ve discussed in numerous articles on this very publication, the overarching belief is that commercial satellites are the more innovative, less expensive and more resilient alternative for the military. As the CEO of commercial satellite provider, SES Space and Defense, Pete Hoene recently said, “Over the past ten years, what we’ve found is that commercial has taken over in terms of investment and innovation.”

However, despite the benefits, the military continues to invest in new communications satellites for its own constellation and continues to purchase commercial satellite capacity on the spot market – which often results in higher prices and less availability. The satellite industry has long called for the military to start thinking of commercial capability as part of an integrated satellite architecture that includes military satellites, but that has yet to truly come to pass.

The creation of the Space Force – a single entity tasked with ensuring our military’s continued dominance and technological advantage in the warfighting domain of space – could be the spark that finally ignites that change in attitudes and culture. And the individual at the top of that new military branch has illustrated a desire to work more closely with industry in the future.

“I think what we’ll see in the future is a more hybrid architecture which would provide us with more resiliency,“ Gen. Raymond told us during last year’s Air Force Association Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We’re here to work with industry and I think that the relationships that we have and that were provided to us by the National Defense Authorization Act will provide us great advantage.”

Time will only tell what impact the Space Force will have on America’s tactical and technological advantage in space, and on the military’s relationship with the satellite industry. But it is further validation that space is an austere environment that will pose new challenges – and exciting new opportunities – for our military moving forward.

Feature image courtesy of U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Melody Howley.

The post Official Space Force launch reflects space’s status as warfighting domain appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

While the Department of Defense (DoD) and industry have made solid progress toward that long-sought goal in recent years, there is still a ways to go, these officials said. One thing the government can do in this regard is provide a steady source of dedicated funding in annual defense budgets for commercial satellite services and integration activities, they said.

Pete Hoene, president and chief executive officer of SES Space and Defense, a subsidiary of satellite owner-operator SES, noted that Congress has established a budgetary line item that purpose but suggested the money has yet to start flowing.

“That’s going to make a huge difference, because once it’s funded it’s real,” Hoene said during a luncheon panel discussion on the topic hosted by the Washington Space Business Roundtable.

Traditionally the U.S. military has procured commercial satellite capacity using emergency wartime, or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), funds, rather than through a dedicated account item in the regular DoD budget. As a result, the industry has had difficulty predicting funding levels for any given year, complicating satellite fleet planning and investment.

“Ultimately we have to get out of the OCO budget and into procurement” and research and development dollars, said Skot Butler, president of Intelsat General, the government services arm of satellite operator Intelsat.

Addressing the audience prior to the panel discussion, Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of Air Force Space Command, said work is nearly complete on a strategic plan for military satellite communications that takes into account government and commercial capabilities.

“While we haven’t put it out in a glossy brochure, the strategy itself is done, and the broad area announcement we put out this summer actually begins the process of an implementation plan to get after the most important elements of the strategy,” Thompson said.

A broad area announcement (BAA) is a notice from the government requesting scientific or research proposals from industry in specific areas of interest. Thompson did not elaborate in detail, but may have been referring to the recent Small Business Innovation Research announcement 19.2, which called for proposals in a number of technical areas, including satellite communications, that have commercial potential.

But Thompson conceded there remains a gap between the Air Force’s traditional military satellite communications culture, which is acquisition and platform focused, and the more service-oriented commercial satellite communications industry. “Bringing those together has been a little bit slower than we had hoped but it is still progressing greatly,” he said.

For example, Thompson said, both sides have identified integration priorities including multiband satellite terminals and an “enterprise management” command and control architecture compatible with both military and commercial satellites.  The Air Force’s Pathfinder series of commercial capability demonstrations as well as the BAA include work in those areas, he said.

Thompson also said the newly established U.S. Space Command, led by Air Force Gen. John ”Jay” Raymond, will be taking a major role in ushering in the integrated satellite communications architecture.

During the panel discussion, industry leaders noted recent promising developments in the ongoing relationship between the military and commercial sector. Prominent among these, particularly from the standpoint of an integrated architecture, was the 2018 transfer of procurement responsibility for commercial satellite bandwidth from Defense Information Systems Agency to the Air Force.

Hoene said the Air Force has a different approach, giving greater weight to the overall value of an industry bid, as opposed to favoring those that meet the minimum requirement at the lowest cost. That shift is long overdue and elevates industry to partner status in the military satellite communications enterprise, he said.

“I would hope on the commercial side it allows commercial to be part of the solution and not an afterthought,” said Rick Lober, vice president and general manager of defense and intelligence systems at Hughes Network Systems, a provider of satellite broadband services and ground equipment. “On the military side I hope it helps on the architecture side so we can think through the space segment, the ground segment, and the terminal segment in a more uniform, timely manner.”

For its part, the commercial sector is working on the technologies to help make it all happen. In addition to flexible terminals that are compatible with different satellites and bandwidths, companies are bringing new space capabilities that will benefit the military, the panelists said.

For example, SES, which already provides low-latency services from its O3b constellation in medium Earth orbit, will soon begin launching a next-generation, Boeing-built system called O3b mPOWER with electronically reconfigurable antennas, Hoene noted. This will allow SES to respond quickly to changing military requirements, he said.

The endgame, from industry’s prospective, is a single architecture in which military users can switch seamlessly between government and different commercial satellites, regardless of ownership, the panelists said.

Hoene noted that between the Air Force, with its 10-satellite Wideband Global Satcom constellation, and the world’s leading commercial operators, there are more than 160 satellites in geostationary orbit. Having all those satellites together in an integrated architecture would make life extremely difficult for adversaries intent on disrupting military operations via satellite signal jamming, he said.

The post Integrated military-commercial satellite architecture taking shape appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Why? Because it’s becoming abundantly clear that this is an extraordinary point in time for the satellite and space industries.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen significant changes in the way that the federal government interacts with and acquires services from their satellite partners. Now, halfway through 2019, it’s clear that this year will forever be remembered as the start of the satellite renaissance.

What do I mean by satellite renaissance? We’re entering a period of time where innovation, new technologies and a booming demand for bandwidth are aligning to create an environment where satellite once again becomes one of the hottest topics of discussion and areas of investment in the federal government.

But to truly understand the change that we’re experiencing, we first have to reflect back on where we came from.

A rocky relationship
For the better part of a decade, executives at satellite companies have been working to improve their relationship with the federal government and military. Although capable of playing an enormous role in meeting the wideband satellite and communications requirements of the government and Department of Defense (DoD), commercial satellite companies were often treated less like mission-critical partners, and more like any other vendor selling a commodity.

A big part of this came from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which previously held acquisition authority for commercial satellite services and often pushed for lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) satellite capacity to be purchased on the spot market.

However, the provisions in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) promised to change much of that.

The FY 2018 NDAA shifted the acquisition authority for satellite services from DISA to the Commander of Air Force Space Command, giving them the authority to, “…procure commercial satellite communications for the Department of Defense.” As a result, Air Force Space Command assumed responsibility and authority for the procurement of COMSATCOM on December 12, 2018.

During this transition, Air Force Space Command has worked to ensure that the satellite industry has been heavily involved in shaping the future of satellite networks and lay the groundwork for future wideband satellite acquisition processes that make sense for both government and industry.

The subsequent FY 2019 NDAA and Defense Appropriations bill contained several additional provisions and initiatives that can benefit both the military and commercial satellite industry. Focused on the future wideband architecture and repeated concerns over the inflexibility of the current architecture for military satellite communications, appropriators directed the service secretaries to develop an integrated wideband and narrowband architecture and acquisition strategy.

Congressional leaders also directed that the architecture and acquisition strategy should include, “…government and commercial space systems,” and, “…be based on flexible operations, open standards, and commonality that has communications path diversity.”

In addition, House appropriators directed all future COMSATCOM integration funding into a newly created program element to increase oversight, while authorizing $49.5M in funding specifically for COMSATCOM efforts – a first-ever budget line item for the commercial satellite industry.

These positive steps towards improved relations between the military and commercial satellite industry have the potential to deliver incredible benefits to the DoD. This potential is only augmented by the capabilities of today’s more advanced satellites, and the increasingly large bandwidth demands of network-centric operations.

A recent renaissance in space
Over the past decade, we’ve seen the rise of multiple potentially disruptive technologies that are capable of fundamentally changing the way the federal government and military operate.

Today’s federal agencies and military branches are scrambling to implement advanced data analytics and Artificial Intelligence to help them gain actionable insights from their data. They’re integrating an enormous ecosystem of sensors into their military platforms and infrastructure. They’re rolling mobile devices out to warfighters, and they’re increasingly looking to generate real-time 4D video ISR data from UAVs to inform their mission planning.

These are just a handful of the new technologies and use cases that are spearheading the demand for a “digital transformation” within the government and military. But these technologies also have something else in common – they’re all network-enabled solutions that are powered by, and require, high-bandwidth network connectivity.

Luckily for the government, this increased bandwidth requirement comes at an exciting time for the satellite industry. A new generation of High Throughput Satellites (HTS) are being built and launched into Geostationary Orbit (GEO), as well as other orbits closer to Earth. When orbiting the Earth in the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), these satellites are capable of delivering immense bandwidth and capacity with drastically reduced latency. This means that the same experience that government users get from terrestrial fiber networks is now available practically anywhere on Earth via satellite.

These solutions are only available to the military through commercial partners. That’s because the rapid innovation in the commercial space industry brings satellite support to the military’s doorstep quicker and more cost effectively than the traditional method of building and launching purpose-built government satellites.

Last year was a great year for the commercial satellite industry and their improving relationships with the federal government. But, thanks to the intersection of multiple government and industry trends, 2019 promises to be even more exciting.

The government’s demand for bandwidth to all corners of the globe is enormous and growing every day. The commercial satellite industry has been innovating relentlessly to develop new, higher bandwidth, lower latency solutions to meet increasing capacity requirements. And the relationship between government organizations and their satellite industry partners is improving immensely. The stage is set for a satellite renaissance. In fact, it may already be upon us.

The post Welcome to the satellite renaissance appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Today, commercial industry is the innovator in space – building and launching new and advanced satellites with exciting new technologies and even launching them into new orbits. But even as the COMSATCOM industry has evolved and matured, the way the government interacted with it and purchased services from it stayed the same.

The government and United States military has long filled gaps in satellite requirements and availability with lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) COMSATCOM services and capacity that they’ve purchased on the spot market. That acquisition method remains in place – which many satellite industry experts would point out is at the detriment of the government.

However, steps are being taken that could elicit some significant change in the relationship between COMSATCOM providers and the Department of Defense (DoD). To get some additional historical perspective on the relationship between the DoD and the COMSATCOM industry, and to learn more about the steps being taken to revolutionize the ways these entities interact, we sat down with Allan Ballenger, a retired Air Force colonel and the current Corporate Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at SES Space and Defense.

Here is what Allan had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): Can you tell us a little bit about the traditional method of purchasing SATCOM capacity on the spot market? Why is that bad for the military?

Allan Ballenger: One reason that buying on the spot market is not a good idea for the US government is that it may not be there at the time and place of the government’s choosing. The commercial market is very dynamic, and if the government needs a particular type of capacity – frequency or orbital slot – it may not be available when they need it.

Instead, by working proactively with industry to help determine a more enterprise architecture approach, the government could sit down in advance and say, “here’s the type of capacity that we need and here’s how we would consider commercial as part of our overall architecture.”

We believe that this is a smarter approach for USG, and that approach seems to be gaining traction in the Air Force Space Command.

GSR: We’ve heard that there are also problems with the kinds of funds that they can buy satellite capacity with. Is that accurate?

Allan Ballenger: That’s accurate on several fronts. To the government’s credit, especially the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center, it pursued various pathfinders, prototypes and pilot programs to explore different aspects of commercial satellite communications.

One of the areas where they ran into roadblocks was in how to structure a long-term commitment with industry partners when Congress allocates money for one or two years at a time. That’s one of the areas that has caused some concern – structuring a more commercial-like business deal but still being confined to the color and length of money restrictions that the US government has.

GSR: You talked about an alternative – having a better, more collaborative relationship and creating a more integrated satellite architecture. What does that relationship look like?

Allan Ballenger: The relationship is more like a partner relationship rather than a vendor relationship.  To me, a vendor relationship is like buying a new car. You may have a sense of what is important to you, but you don’t really care who you buy it from. You just want the best deal on that particular purchase. In other cases, when you make a purchase decision, you may care more about the relationship and the level of trust and confidence you have in that relationship – such as when you’re picking a doctor or having a medical procedure.

What we think would be good is to develop a sense of partnership with the US government and industry providers, where the government recognizes the contributions of commercial satellites to their overall communications architecture. I believe that that change has been taking place over recent years, which is a good thing, but there are still those elements that view the world through a narrower lens.

If you’re buying a pure commodity like tires or paper clips, you can and should purchase an LPTA solution. We believe that it’s not in the best interest of the government when it comes to complex technical solutions. That’s not to say that LPTA is always bad; we’re just saying that it’s been misapplied when it comes to commercial satellite communications.

Congress has recognized that in the past few years. We’ve seen recent solicitations steering the departments away from LPTA for complex technical solutions. We believe that will ultimately result in better pricing and better mission success.

GSR: What steps is the military taking to better integrate COMSATCOM and commercial partners into its integrated satellite architecture as trusted partners and less as a provider of a commodity?

Allan Ballenger: There have been a couple of things that have moved the ball in a positive direction. Congressional legislation in late 2017 – Section 1601 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 – shifted the procurement of COMSATCOM from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to Air Force Space Command.

When that legislation passed, the core government staff reached out almost immediately – and multiple times – across the industry to start getting input as they transitioned to Air Force Space Command. That ultimately resulted in a strategic working group hosted by Air Force Space Command that brought together leadership elements from Space Command, the U.S. government, and key industry partners. That was a step in the right direction in establishing trust and partnership as Air Force Space Command assumed a leadership role in satellite communications procurement.

Another area that is less recent but also very important is the government’s establishment of a commercial innovation cell within the Combined Space Operations Center (C-SPOC), formerly known as the Joint Space Operations Center.

Within C-SPOC, they’ve had this Commercial Innovation Cell (CIC) for several years that brings together eight commercial companies. [Those companies] all participate in a cooperative research and development agreement. That means that there is no additional cost to the government, but there is a mutual benefit to the government and to the companies, so the government gets the benefit of direct and timely insight about what exactly is going on with commercial satellite constellations, and the companies get insight into how the government is operating and how commercial satellites can be used throughout the Department of Defense.

Through that relationship, we work day-to-day – on a confidential level – on the integration of commercial and government satellites. It gives us insight on how we can shape our future commercial capabilities to fulfill the government’s future needs.

GSR: This movement away from LPTA and the move of acquisition authority from DISA to Space Command and collaboration through C-SPOC all help make industry a more trusted government partner…but is it enough? If not, what else has to be done?

Allan Ballenger: The real challenge is crafting the integrated enterprise architecture and vision that includes both purpose-built government satellites and commercial satellites.

Historically, when planners set up military missions, they might have looked solely to purpose-built satellite communications systems. What we’re trying to help them understand is how commercial satellites are already there and capable of supporting the global architecture for satellite communications. Instead of having the military constellations over here and the commercial constellations over there – and never the twain shall meet – we should treat it as an integrated picture. Commanders at various levels should have options to use both purpose-built and commercial SATCOM.

I believe Air Force Space Command is stepping up to lead that integrated enterprise architecture, and probably later this year, we’ll see a more integrated view of how the government envisions using the best of breed [satellite services] across both purpose-built government systems and commercial systems.

GSR: What will the benefit be to the government if they have this combined pool of military and commercial satellite resources?

Allan Ballenger: For decades, the government drove innovation and investment in space, and commercial and industry was always behind. But within the past decade, that calculus has flipped. Now, commercial players are leading spending and innovation, coming up with new ways of launching and operating satellites in orbit and shrinking the size of satellites.

If the government wants to take advantage of that innovation, it’s in its best interest to leverage industry as a partner so they can take advantage of these new capabilities.

Utilizing commercial satellites also allows the government to more quickly stand up new capability. In classic government programs, the process is fairly lethargic – with a lengthy requirements process followed by a lengthy acquisition process, followed by a lengthy fielding process. It can take years – even a decade – between the inception of an idea and the fielding of an idea.

In today’s environment, the way commercial development is going, it can be a few months to a year or two to field a new idea. The ability to take advantage of commercial innovation quickly is a key advantage for the government. Having that responsive support, government missions – especially critical military missions – can depend on highly available, highly reliable communications. That can be a combination of purpose-built government satellites and commercial satellites. It doesn’t have to be limited to one or the other.

Lastly, there’s cost. As there is a standardization of satellites across the industry, the government will benefit from lower costs in the commercial SATCOM industries.

The post The turning tide of government and commercial satellite industry relations – a Q&A with Allan Ballenger appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Across the board, we’re continuing to see that militaries are in the process of reevaluating and changing how they conduct “business as usual” when it comes to space. Much of that has to do with the fact that space – itself – has changed as a domain.

Space is no longer a benign domain thanks to the reemergence on near-peer adversaries capable of challenging and denying space resources and capabilities in theater. Simultaneously, the space and satellite domain have been revolutionized by the introduction of new commercial players and massive innovation from industry partners. This innovation has come in the form of a new generation of satellites that are being launched and coming on-line in new orbits, the emergence of commercial space launch and even the advancement of on-orbit refueling and servicing.

Together, these trends have led to global militaries – including the United States military – needing to rethink how they gain access to space capabilities, how they acquire space resources and even how they fundamentally architect and build their space infrastructure. This has led to some drastic decisions and changes across governments, as well as some head scratching. All of which was on display at Global MilSatCom.

Let’s take a look at the news coming out of the show, and talk about the impact it’ll have on the industry:

Ground segment getting more attention in military space programs, U.S. leaders say
Historically, government customers have met their satellite requirements in a piecemeal fashion – leasing bandwidth on the spot market to fill gaps in coverage and availability, using a mix of MilSatCom and ComSatCom resources and purchasing ground terminals for specific requirements.

Unfortunately, this piecemeal approach has led to interoperability issues and challenges with the military’s ground infrastructure.

As this article discusses, there were multiple discussions about ground infrastructure at Global MilSatCom about the interoperability challenges and problems with aging ground terminals facing today’s military. One of the proposed solutions was a more holistic approach to satellite acquisition – taking both the space and ground segment into consideration when evaluating and implementing new satellite resources and infrastructure.

However, industry could have another solution in the form of satellite managed services. In this instance, the industry partner is hired as a service provider – effectively on the hook for all of the hardware and services needed to deliver a capability to the end customer. This means that everything from the ground terminal to the bandwidth needed would be included in the managed service. It’s a system that has become increasingly popular in the satellite industry and that could begin to make its way more into the military and government space.

That being said, it’s clear that ground terminals are and will continue to be a challenge and area of focus for global militaries, and the approach to acquiring ground terminals will most likely change. But that’s not the only change in acquisition that was a topic at this week’s show.

Air Force Space Command prepares to take over procurement of satellite communications
This is a pretty big one. The Air Force Space Command is poised and ready to take on a big responsibility that was originally owned by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) – the acquisition of commercial satellite services for the entire Department of Defense (DoD).

The impetus for this change has a lot to do with concerns about the speed of acquisitions and if operator’s needs are being met. The feeling is that this change in acquisition authority will help make necessary ComSatCom services more readily available to the military at the speed of war.

Another change that could be precipitated by this interesting shift in acquisition authority is a move away from Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracting – which bought satellite service based on its price – making it very much like a commodity. With Air Force Space Command at the helm, there is an expected shift towards more innovative acquisition models and a movement to award contracts by more criteria than just cost.

And while this change is certainly a positive step for the government, it wasn’t the only change that was floated to the acquisition process during Global MilSatCom…

Air Force satellite communications buyers would like to see commercial vendors team up into a consortium.
While the above shift is on the government side, there was also a proposed change to the industry side of the acquisition equation.

Due to concerns about vendor lock-in and terminal interoperability, militaries have been reticent to embrace the “satellite as a managed service” model that we discussed above. In an attempt to make it more palatable to the government, some speakers at Global MilSatCom came up with a somewhat interesting proposal – team up.

Tom Becht, the interim director of the military satellite communications directorate at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, called for industry leaders to team up in a consortium that could offer satellite services across companies and constellations to the military as a unit.

We’re not sure how open satellite companies would be towards that kind of tag team, but it certainly is a new and innovative approach to satellite acquisitions…

The post News out of Global MilSatCom shows shifts in military satellite strategies appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

What is the Air Force transitioning from? Over the course of the previous decade or two, the entire Department of Defense has been geared towards a fight against adversaries around the world that weren’t as technologically advanced or sophisticated as our military. That’s no longer the case.

According to Deputy Defense Secretary, Patrick Shanahan, “We live in an era of great power competition. That’s a muscle we haven’t used in a while. In contrast, our great power adversaries have studied our way of war for thirty years and have built systems and doctrine to thwart it.”

Today’s threats are from increasingly sophisticated, near-peer adversaries that are capable of challenging the United States military in practically every domain. These adversaries have historically proven capable of challenging our country’s superiority in the traditional warfighting domains of air, land and sea. More recently, they’ve proven capable of sophisticated attacks in cyberspace, and they’ve turned space from a benign environment into a warfighting domain.

This sentiment was reflected in comments by Gen. John Raymond, the Commander of the Air Force Space Command, when he said, “There’s great alignment in our nation today that space is a warfighting domain, just like air, land and sea…and that’s really the focus of Air Force Space Command today…[we’re] at a strategic inflection point and that’s a point where we used to operate in a benign domain, but today we’re operating in a contested domain.”

Innovate or fall behind
This new, more sophisticated threat has created new pressures on the Air Force, which now finds itself in need of developing unified and comprehensive deterrents and responses to aggression across all domains. What’s more, the Air Force finds itself in a position where it must innovate and evolve at the same pace – if not faster – than adversaries that are investing heavily into technology and military capabilities.

It was this topic of innovation that dominated many of the panel discussions and side sessions at this year’s conference. It was also one of the topics that dominated the keynote Q&A session and discussion with the AFA’s extremely impressive guest – billionaire Amazon and Blue Origin Founder, Jeff Bezos.

Innovation was just one of the topics that was repeated throughout the conference. Another involved funding and investment.

A narrow opening in the funding window
Many of the week’s side sessions and panel discussions ended with time for a Q&A. During these Q&A sessions, the Air Force personnel and industry representatives in attendance were given the opportunity to submit questions. Repeatedly, those questions involved investment in Air Force bases and infrastructure.

Based on the questions posed to senior Air Force leaders – and their subsequent answers – it’s apparent that Air Force bases and infrastructure are in need of long-awaited repairs and renovations. It also became apparent that investment in those areas is forthcoming.

According to Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Stephen Wilson, “[Our team has] mapped out our bases and infrastructure and we can tell you where areas we need improvements are down to every building on every installation across the Air Force. Then we’ve got to stop just looking at it and doing something about it, so we’ve prioritized the investment in our infrastructure…and boosted the funding considerably this past year and made it priority that we’ll fundamentally fund our base infrastructure…”

The timing for this strategic investment works out. There is an open window of increased funding available to the military thanks in large part to the current administration’s desire to recapitalize and rejuvenate America’s military. However, even with the window open, there’s only so many things that fit through it before it closes.

Strict program budgets are forcing the Air Force to make difficult decisions and prioritize initiatives and acquisitions, while still working to effectively build a combat-ready force capable of defending the nation against an increasingly sophisticated threat.

To accomplish this, many of the senior leaders and speakers at the conference proposed turning to partners – especially industry partners.

An eye on industry
If both funding and innovation are problems facing the Air Force, they have an ally in private industry – both as a means of driving innovation and cutting costs.

Private companies are constantly challenging their employees and working to foster a culture that encourages innovation in an attempt to find better, more efficient ways to accomplish tasks and – subsequently – generate more and higher profits. They foster these innovative environments by giving employees the freedom to create, the opportunities to share ideas with upper management and the freedom to fail – and fail quickly – with little fear of repercussion.

Needless to say, there are significant cultural shifts and changes that are needed within the military to foster a similar approach to innovation. To the credit of the Air Force and other military branches, current leadership appears poised and prepared to make some of the necessary changes to foster innovation, but it may not come quickly and easily.

In the meantime, many speakers at the AFA Conference discussed how the military can benefit from the innovation that’s happening in private industry by learning from it, ripping it off and purchasing it.

Many of the challenges facing the Air Force are similar or in line with the challenges facing certain industries. For example, commercial airlines and delivery companies face many of the same challenges keeping their fleets maintained and operational. Many large, global retailers, including Amazon, face similar logistical challenges as branches of the military.

By comparing and benchmarking the military’s solutions and operations to those in use in the private industry, innovative techniques and processes can be assessed and – if proven more effective – be implemented to make the Air Force more efficient.

Then, there’s the idea of purchasing commercial solutions as an alternative to buying or building bespoke, purpose-built solutions for the military. This is an alternative that can help the military solve both of the major challenges outlined at the AFA Conference – innovation and budget constraints.

Deputy Defense Secretary, Patrick Shanahan, urged listeners to, “…embrace enterprise solutions and speed,” while claiming that, “Many of the…systems that industry has deployed over the past decade are ripe for our adoption. It’s what I call R&D – rip off and deploy. A custom, federated approach is a trap.”

This sentiment was shared by Jeff Bezos, who accurately stated that, “It’s so important for the DoD and the Air Force, when they can, to use commercial solutions.” That’s because custom built solutions often require more time, forcing the military to wait for the benefits and capabilities they will deliver. Custom-built solutions also tend to cost more, and can stifle innovation because they’re built to the specifications of groups or individuals who may not know all that’s possible or available.

This was also explained by Jeff Bezos when he said, “When the requirements [for custom solutions] are written, they’re not written taking [commercially available solutions] into account. So, when they get something, they’re getting something custom built instead of something that is a commercial system that may not have met those requirements, but may have serviced the military in a better way for what was required.”

The benefits of utilizing commercial solutions over custom built solutions are even more apparent in space.

Commercial space for innovation, cost savings and defense
The commercial space industry has seen a massive wave of innovation and advancement in the past three to five years. From developments in lower latency, higher bandwidth satellite constellations to advancements in less expensive commercial space flight operations, to the announcement of in-orbit servicing and refueling programs, commercial companies are opening the door to a level of space capability that was previously only dreamt of.

It’s now on the Air Force and broader military to begin embracing these commercial solutions to their benefit. As General Raymond stated, “We’re working to strengthen the relationships with industry. It’s a bad word to use in the space business, but there’s an explosion of things happening in the space industry. We want to capitalize on that.”

Innovation aside, commercial capabilities and solutions can also be a less expensive option for the military. Utilizing hosted payloads – placing military payloads on commercial spacecraft – is just one of many ways the Air Force could take advantage of industry services to not only save money, but also get access to new space capabilities more rapidly. Also, utilizing managed satellite services from industry partners is a more cost-effective way to get satellite communications capabilities, in contrast to building and launching satellites, and purchasing necessary ground infrastructure.

Then there’s the issue of protecting military satellite capabilities. As we’ve established, space is now a warfighting domain. With many military satellite constellations built for what was a benign environment, they’re simply unprepared to defend themselves. As General Raymond said, “The constellations that we have on orbit today aren’t all that defensible. They’ve been described by some as the slow kids in gym class that can’t run that fast.”

This is another area where commercial satellite can pay dividends for the military. By utilizing commercial satellites, the Air Force and the rest of the DoD can effectively distribute their satellite communications and satellite capabilities across multiple constellations, making them harder to target by our adversaries. Also, with commercial operators constantly innovating, the military would gain access to new waveforms and satellite technologies that are inherently harder to jam.

This year’s AFA Air, Space and Cyber Conference painted a very interesting picture of an Air Force in transition and with significant challenges. Today’s Air Force needs to retool and reinvest to prepare for a near-peer adversary with capabilities unlike any adversary that we’ve faced in the past two decades. The only way that the Air Force can make the changes it needs to make, improve its infrastructure and increase its readiness is with innovation. Leaning on industry partners – especially those in the commercial space industry – is one of the more surefire ways that the Air Force can accomplish its goals and be best prepared to accomplish its mission.

Feature image: U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Zoe M. Wockenfuss.

The post AFA Conference highlights an Air Force in transition appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The establishment of a new branch of the military isn’t unheard of, but it also hasn’t happened in a long time. The military started with one branch – the United States Army – in 1775 and then expanded to three with the introduction of the Navy and Marines later that same year. Another branch wouldn’t be added until 1915, when the Coast Guard was established. The number of branches reached its current number of five when the Air Force was established as its own branch in 1947, following World War II and the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947.

The military has stayed as those five branches for 71 years – at least until now, with this directive to begin ramping up a Space Force.

Launching and establishing a separate Space Force has been met with a somewhat mixed reaction – most likely because it does sound like something right out of science fiction. However, the concept of creating a Space Force is indicative of a new reality in space that’s become increasingly worrisome for our military – space is no longer a benign domain.

The idea that our adversaries have witnessed the strategic advantage that space and satellite capabilities give our military and are working to deny this advantage is one that’s discussed every time military leaders responsible for the space domain are together. Here are just a few quotes from senior military space officials and influencers that have been reported in the Government Satellite Report in the past year:

“Adversaries have had a front-row seat, watching our success and figuring out the operational, strategical, and tactical advantages that we gain from [SATCOM].” – Lt. Gen. John “Jay” Raymond, Commander of Air Force Space Command

“Cyber attack against a variety of communications networks is a difficult challenge. But the far simpler thing that Russia can do. That North Korea can do. That Iran can do. That Botswana can do. That some guy in the middle of a field with a TV truck can do…is jamming. Jamming is very hard to protect against, unless you have the right equipment.” – Douglas Loverro, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy

Making a Space Force
There is clearly consensus and understanding that space is now a warfighting domain, and the directive to ramp up a Space Force is at least evidence of that fact. But starting a new branch of the military is not something that’s going to happen overnight.

In fact, the impetus to start a new branch of the military requires more than just a directive from the President – it also requires action from Congress. As Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, recently told Defense News, “…Congress alone has the power to establish a new branch of the military and to establish the positions of senior executive officials to lead such a department.”

Between the requirement to get Congressional approval for the Space Force, and the logistics required to make it a reality, the Space Force could take years to get off of the ground. But the threat to America’s satellites and space resources is real today. With a clear threat to overcome and an unknown amount of time needed to get the Space Force established, it’s clear that faster and more expedient steps to protect our space capabilities should be considered – and that’s where commercial satellites could help.

Today’s advanced high-throughput and MEO satellite constellations feature advanced technologies that are inherently more secure and harder to jam. But the use of commercial satellites in conjunction with existing military satellite constellations offers mission assurance and resiliency in other ways, as well.

By spreading military signals across a combination of military satellites and commercial satellites, it becomes increasingly difficult for adversaries to identify which satellites to compromise. It also becomes nearly impossible to deny satellite capabilities by compromising one, or multiple satellites, since others would be available to carry that load.

Ultimately, commercial satellites can play a hand in enabling multiple resiliency factors that can – when combined – make our satellite infrastructure significantly more secure without immense investment.

As Doug Loverro recently said during a Defense One-organized, “Cocktails and Conversations,” event, “It’s going to be a combination of proliferation, disaggregation, diversity, distribution, protection, proliferation and deception. Those factors can combine for any space capability that we know about to make them resilient, and – quite frankly – it doesn’t cost a lot of money if you combine them correctly.”

Regardless of whether the Space Force is the appropriate step at the appropriate time to help protect our space assets and satellites, the fact that it’s being considered is evidence that resiliency and readiness in space is a paramount concern and that space is no longer benign. But there are steps that we can take to protect these space assets now, while we explore other solutions – and embracing commercial satellites is a cost effective and efficient step in the right direction.

To learn more about the ways that commercial satellite services are being used within the military, click on the following resources:

• GovSat: A new concept in secure communications
• High Throughput on the High Seas
• High Throughput Satellites for U.S. Government Applications

The post Before the Space Force – how COMSATCOM can increase resiliency now appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

“If you can’t be enthused and excited about what’s going on in space today, maybe you need a new job,” joked Thompson. His passion for space and technology was clear as he explained that the reestablishment of the National Security Space Council, paired with investments in space technology and innovation, are first steps to ensuring superiority in the space domain.

Alignment with today’s leaders across all branches of the government and the National Security Policy is where it all begins. The policy, published for the first time since 1999, declares that unfettered space access, along with the freedom of action in space, is essential for our economic and national security. It also further cements the space domain as a warfighting domain.

“For better or worse, space has become a warfighting domain,” explained Thompson. If war extends to space the military must be ready with leadership aligned to take action. Thompson attributes the increasing readiness of the Air Force to Secretary Heather Wilson, who was instated a year ago and, since taking the position, has not stopped championing space as an important warfighting domain. This desire to increase readiness has also led to additional investment in space and mission assurance for satellite systems.

“It was almost $7 billion dollars more that was added to the Air Force budget across the years from ‘19 to ’23,” said Thompson who went on to explain that $5.5 billion was also internally realigned totaling $12.5 billion dedicated to space innovation.

“That’s a huge step. That’s a major investment. We have more work to do as we always do, but it really does send a message to any potential adversary that we will protect and defend our space capabilities,” said Thompson. But that step is just one of many, as multiple important questions remain for the Air Force and DoD to answer.

“How do we produce efficiently? How do we produce effectively? How do we drive down cost? How do we learn lessons?” asked Thompson. One way that he suggested to accomplish that was to apply models that proved efficient within other sectors to space. By embracing these systems and models, the Air Force can more effectively and rapidly produce systems and deliver solutions to the warfighter. Thompson also championed the military partnering closely with the commercial sector to “provide capabilities that our warfighters need [and] do it quickly…do it agilely…and do it in the face of what is truly a contested domain.”

“This is a moment in history where we have the time, we have the resources, we have the support, and we have the directive to make a difference for national security space,” said Thompson in his closing remarks.

Click play on the video below to watch Lieutenant General David. D. Thompson’s remarks.

The post Lieutenant General David. D. Thompson Shares His View on the Space “Renaissance” appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Partnerships between agencies, allies and, importantly, with the industry are a key element of the emerging U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) strategy to preserve access to critical space capabilities in the face of growing threats posed by potential U.S. adversaries, senior national security leaders said.

“In a contested space environment, partnerships strengthen our advantage and complicate potential adversary decision-making,” said Gen. Jay Raymond, commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command, which delivers space capabilities to the warfighters. He noted, for example, the Air Force’s strong relationship with the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which buys and operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites.

“We’ve also got several partnership opportunities we’re working with the commercial world,” Raymond said. “Those range from launch to re-entry and everything in between.”

Bookended by launch and re-entry are commercial satellite-delivered services including imagery and communications, upon which the military and intelligence community have come to depend.

DoD Looks to Determine Next-Generation Architecture
“In the old days, the processing power of the [communications] throughput that was available out there in industry was not what we needed—we had to develop our own,” NRO Director Betty Sapp said in a Space Symposium keynote address. “Those days are long gone—commercial has more than what we need.”

The Defense Department in recent years has spent $1 billion or more on commercial satellite capacity, according to space industry officials. Commercial satellites continue to carry a significant portion of U.S. military communications traffic, and demand is expected to increase in the coming years.

The Air Force, an operator of the Wideband Global Satcom system that the service characterizes as the backbone of its satellite communications fleet, is in the midst of an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to determine the content of its next-generation architecture. A key question is what is the best mix of mix of government and commercially owned assets to help the DoD do its job in the years ahead.

DoD Underserved by Terrestrial Links
The DoD could realize an exponential leap in communications capability by pulling together multiple commercial and military constellations into a single network where users are able to move seamlessly between constellations.  Gen John Hyten, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has stated that, “SATCOM systems are key to our continued strategic posture in space…”

Among those systems, SES’ O3b MEO fleet is unique in that it operates in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) at about 8,000 kilometers in altitude, whereas the others are geostationary systems located 36,000 kilometers above the equator. The lower altitude of the O3b’s MEO satellites allow them to relay signals with significantly less lag time, or latency, than geostationary systems. U.S. military officials have touted the benefits of low-latency systems as forces increasingly rely on satellites to support so-called enterprise applications that often are intolerant of signal delays.

SES’ O3b MEO constellation currently consists of 16 satellites, with four more slated to launch next year and seven next-generation O3b mPower spacecraft slated to begin launching in 2021.

“SES continues to enhance our O3b MEO constellation to provide fiber-like services to multiple U.S. government customers at its 17 sites worldwide,” said Peter Hoene, President and Chief Executive Officer of Reston, Va.-based SES Space and Defense, that exclusively serves US government customers. “In combination with SES’ geostationary satellites, O3b MEO provides connectivity that is flexible, reliable and resilient.”

Air Force Devoted to Industry Partnerships
Air Force Lt. Gen. John F. Thompson, commander of the service’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), which oversees the acquisition of most U.S. military space systems, said a just-announced SMC reorganization will help ensure that commercial capabilities are appropriately integrated into the overall military space architecture. As part of the reorganization, unveiled by Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in a keynote speech here April 17, the service is creating a “chief architect” position to consider the space enterprise as a whole, rather than its individual component parts.

“Our portfolio architect that Secretary Wilson also mentioned will have an office completely devoted to partnerships to ensure that we keep those connections and put together the best space systems that we possibly can,” Thompson told reporters at a Symposium press conference April 19.

The SMC reorganization comes amid continued debate over whether the Air Force is properly structured to address its current and future challenges in space.

In a speech to a government affairs breakfast at the Symposium co-sponsored by the Space Foundation and SES Space and Defense, Doug Loverro, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, said that during the 1960s and 1970s, the service did a great job of cultivating internal expertise on the subject. This was accomplished not through a formal structure but by allowing Air Force officers to build on their space knowledge as they moved to different and progressively higher positions, both within the service and at other agencies like the NRO and NASA.

That wholistic space cadre development was lost via what Loverro called “a long and disconnected series of unfortunate events,” in which the Air Force unwittingly created bureaucratic barriers between space operations and acquisition personnel and hindered the career advancement of space professionals. While he stopped short of advocating a quasi-independent Space Corps, as some stakeholders have advocated, he said the space enterprise might benefit through formal structures designed to enhance the development of career space professionals.

The post Partnerships hold key to resiliency in space appeared first on SES Space and Defense.