During one session at the event, SES Government Solutions’ (SES GS) Director of BD Engineering, Technologies and Solutions, Ram Rao, had the opportunity to address conference attendees on some of the next-generation solutions that are enabling greater visibility into militaries’ technology networks, and discuss how these emerging capabilities can advance U.S. Department of Defense (DoD missions and deliver critical, decision-making information and data at speed.

Network visibility at speed
In the past, the U.S. military has not had a capability to render big-picture visibility of all DoD information, communications, and technology networks. For example, if one branch of the DoD had a network of 500 end-to-end connections, there has never been a solution or means to have a high level, holistic view of all connections in one window for review. And this is a challenge that the U.S. military is looking to remedy.

There is immense value in being able to automatically drill down to individual network connections and dissect each part of an end-to-end connection. If military networks employed such automated capabilities, it would eliminate the laborious and time-consuming legwork of manually monitoring every network connection.

Instead of dedicating valuable manhours that manual monitoring requires, the DoD can employ automated solutions that constantly scan, examine, and provide feedback on all connections. These new technologies can also provide views that scale down to the individual satellite, teleport, and connection, as well as scale up to high-level, holistic vantage points of the entire network. Processes that used to take days of laborious network scanning and monitoring has now evolved into automated near real-time – if not real-time – feedback and visibility of a network and all the connections it houses.

Besting the adversary through real-time monitoring
Aside from the benefits that DoD network operators could gain from an optimized visibility solution, it’s critical that the speed at which mission goals are delivered always remains a priority. According to Rao, “When we listen to all the high-ranking officials, five-star generals – all the way down to the hands-on people – in the military, the one thing they’re talking about is ‘speed of delivery’ and real-time processing, because every second matters when we are trying to defend ourselves or offend our enemies.”

Rao went on to explain that being the first to make decisions in a time of defensive or offensive crises is of the utmost importance to the DoD. The only way high-ranking officials can be first to strike or defend depends on the data, intelligence, and communications they exchange between decisionmakers at headquarters and the warfighters on the battlefield.

“It’s about making the decision first, and who is first,” said Rao. “We don’t want to make decisions blindly. We want to hit intelligently. So, how do you intelligently do it? If every link and connection is up and running, the data is flowing from the end-users to the headquarters, where all our decisionmakers are sitting. Through automated networking monitoring solutions that ensure assured communications and connectivity, they will have real-time data available to them and can quickly make decisions.”

Network visibility and JADC2
Network performance monitoring solutions that grant wider visibility into military networks will most certainly support the DoD’s overarching Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) project. According to the Congressional Research Service, JADC2 is a “concept to connect sensors from all of the military services—Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force—into a single network.” DoD efforts that support network singularity, like JADC2, can give complete, high-level visibility into a conglomeration of various network capabilities that enable decisionmakers to advance missions.

Overarching network performance solutions that can drill down to individual views and subviews of a singular network connection is game-changing for a concept like JADC2. Allowing DoD decisionmakers to gain visibility into thousands of different network data points in a streamlined and consolidated interface can ensure that the U.S. military is always one step ahead of the adversary.

The soon-to-come ICT Portal
According to Rao, SES GS is hard at work on a soon-to-be-released solution that will deliver those network performance monitoring capabilities to the U.S. military. SES GS’ Information, Communications, and Technologies (ICT) Portal will do just that.

Rao describes the ICT Portal as a spokesperson for DoD networks. “The ICT Portal will be a window that will enable visibility into the network’s capabilities, how it is built, and how it is operating,” said Rao. “This will deliver complete resiliency to military networks, and support the DoD’s JADC2 initiative.”

“The platform will provide visibility on a single pane of glass to government end-users, and give a holistic view into networks from an end-to-end connectivity point of view,” said Rao.

To learn about the role other emerging technologies, such as AI/ML, will play in the future of MILSATCOM, click HERE.

The post How next-gen performance monitoring solutions will deliver greater visibility into DoD networks appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

In an effort to help Congress better understand the different use cases, services, and emerging solutions that NGSO satellites can provide to all military domains, as well as highlight the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) benefits that NGSOs can deliver to the U.S. government, SES Space and Defense recently conducted a series of congressional NGSO demonstrations on Capitol Hill.

To learn more about why now is the time for the U.S. government to take advantage of NGSO capabilities, and to get an update on what NGSO technologies and military use cases the company demonstrated to Congress, the Government Satellite Report was able to catch up with SES Space and Defense’s Vice President of Government Affairs, Marketing, Corporate Communications, Jon Bennett.

Here is what he had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): A few weeks ago, SES Space and Defense held demonstrations of its NGSO satellite solutions for lawmakers in Congress. What was the company demonstrating? What capabilities were you looking to show these Congresspeople?

Jon Bennett: Whenever we are in front of Congress, especially when we work with the Armed Services Committee or other Committees of Jurisdiction, we want to highlight the game changing impact satellite solutions have on U.S. national security.

When we held that demonstration, our first and foremost priority was to showcase what we’re doing for each of the combatant commands and their respective areas of responsibility (AOR). For example, what has SES Space and Defense done from a SATCOM perspective to support Navy equities for the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)? Well, that’s pretty easy.

We discussed our roll-on/roll-off Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) solution, what we call Navy MEO Wi-Fi. We showcased to our congressional stakeholders on the impacts SATCOM is having on the soldiers, sailors, and marines that have been in port, especially during the pandemic where COVID restrictions really limited our warfighters during port.

We showcased how we have been able to allow those folks – who have not been able to disembark their respective ships – to FaceTime with family, access online banking services, attend online schooling, etc. These are all things that we on the mainland take advantage of. So, we were able to demonstrate those connectivity strides and improved quality of life measures to Congress.

It all boils down to helping Congress understand why they should care about satellite communications, because communications is the critical backbone of any military operation.

GSR: Why was it important for legislators to see these capabilities?

Jon Bennett: Without communication capabilities being delivered warfighters would be going into theatre, blind. Tactical brigades would be severely hampered with operations potentially limited. The bottom line is that satellite communications offer real-time, highly accurate information to those that need to consume information and deliver actionable intelligence. We can’t deploy Stryker brigades without having the communication network, because those teams won’t be tethered to the decision makers, which leaves the warfighters uninformed. That can be disastrous, especially in the heat of battle.

If the U.S. doesn’t leverage SATCOM, we are certainly putting ourselves at an extreme disadvantage to our adversaries.” -Jon Bennett

We simply needed to express to our Hill stakeholders the need to provide resilient and diverse satellite communications is critical to meeting Department of Defense SATCOM requirements. At the end of the day, our demonstrations were dedicated to emphasizing how comms is the backbone to military operations. That’s what we wanted Congress to walk away with when we were finished.

GSR: Congress recently included some language about NGSO satellite in this year’s NDAA. Why is Congress so interested in NGSO satellite right now? Why would lawmakers be interested in the type of satellite solutions that the military is utilizing?

Jon Bennett: We always emphasize how space is an essential variable to the national security equation. I just mentioned how communications is the backbone to military operations, right? If the U.S. doesn’t leverage SATCOM, we are certainly putting ourselves at an extreme disadvantage to our adversaries.

When discussing why Congress is interested in NGSO, it goes back to General Raymond’s Fighting SATCOM initiative, which requires multi-band satellite communications – Ka, Ku, C-band etc. It also requires multi-orbit comms, such as geosynchronous (GEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), and then low Earth orbit (LEO). What Fighting SATCOM does is that it allows the military to seamlessly transition from one orbital asset – the LEO, MEO, or GEO satellites – and at different frequencies to another.

That capability effectively complicates the enemy’s targeting calculus. For example, if adversaries like China, Russia, or North Korea degrades one of our assets from a MILSAT perspective, the military can then transition seamlessly to commercial capabilities at those various orbits and those various frequencies. That is why Congress cares about NGSO. Because for many, many years, GEO satellites are just sitting there. They’re big, fat, juicy targets, right? So, it is a lot easier to degrade those assets.

Whereas with your MEO assets – like O3b MEO and our soon-to-be-launched O3b mPOWER constellation – those satellites move equatorially. They’re constantly moving, which is a critical attribute to have for resilient SATCOM. Creating a highly secure and resilient asset that belongs in the space SATCOM ecosystem is just one aspect of why Congress has been showing interest in NGSO capabilities.

For us, the medium Earth orbit is our absolute sweet spot, because it’s uncontested and uncongested.” -Jon Bennett

From a security perspective, it allows the ability to mitigate threats through that resiliency, security, and redundancy. It all ties back to Fighting SATCOM and the ability to protect space assets, improve space situational awareness, and create missile warning and tracking capabilities, to name a few. If you have satellites in all three orbits able to track them in a scenario where an inbound missile is coming at high velocity and speed, we absolutely need that low latency at all layers to be able to track said missile threat. Congress is keenly interested in that, especially in the early rapid advancements you’re seeing with our adversarial nations. This is another reason lawmakers are interested in deploying the appropriate mix of military and commercial satellite solutions within the DoD Enterprise Architecture.

GSR: From a mission assurance and security standpoint, how does the military benefit from leveraging commercial NGSO satellite services?

Jon Bennett: First, let me explain what NGSO means. NGSO or Non-geostationary satellites occupy a range of orbital positions (LEO satellites are located between 700km-1,500km from the Earth, MEO satellites are located at 10,000km from the Earth), and do not maintain a stationary position, but instead move in relation to the Earth’s surface. For us, the medium Earth orbit is our absolute sweet spot, because it’s uncontested and uncongested. There isn’t any other commercial entity out there that has MEO assets, like we have in O3b and the soon-to-be O3b mPOWER. We have been operating and servicing the U.S. government in MEO since 2016.

The ability to operate in MEO is a lot cleaner, whereas with LEO there is a concern that it is going to be extremely congested. There are thousands of satellites moving at rapid speeds. And in order to get into space, you have to go into and through LEO, which raises a great amount of concern. I’m not saying there aren’t benefits from LEO, the Fighting SATCOM vision calls for assets in all three orbits. But there is a slight concern when it comes to space debris and having to go through LEO to get into MEO and GEO.

Another benefit of leveraging commercial, especially with NGSO, is the security, resiliency, and redundancy it provides. When you’re able to complicate an enemy’s targeting calculus, that ensures that the built-in security features of your assets can mitigate threats at the highest level.

To us, the greatest capability that we offer to the warfighter in all domains, whether it be in air, land, sea, or cyber, is what we call fiber-like latency.” -Jon Bennett

So how did we do that? When Boeing was designing and building our O3b mPOWER MEO capabilities, we leveraged reports, at the classified level, to help us understand and hone in on the security vulnerabilities that our satellites and space assets are currently facing. When we were building our next-gen capability in O3b mPOWER, we developed features that were built into the design phase, thus making O3b mPOWER inherently resilient and secure.

GSR: What new services, tools, and capabilities could these satellite solutions enable for the warfighter across the different warfighting domains?

Jon Bennett: Inherent security and flexibility are going to be key aspects. Those aspects are the heart of the new service tools and capabilities that O3b mPOWER is going to bring to the fight.

Simply put, O3b mPOWER has inherent security and flexibility through NSA CNSSP-12, and allows for command uplink decryption and telemetry downlink encryption while designed to meet ODNI stringent cybersecurity requirements

To us, the greatest capability that we offer to the warfighter in all domains, whether it be in air, land, sea, or cyber, is what we call fiber-like latency. We enable less than 150 millisecond round trip latency. It’s essentially fiber in the sky, and that’s what our MEO satellites offer.

There is a need for GEO, MEO, and LEO, because you need to have all three orbits to truly complicate an enemy’s attack and targeting calculus.” -Jon Bennett

Another emerging capability that we are offering is secure beam steering. We have 5,000 steerable beams at our disposal on these assets. That aspect is a definite gamechanger. Having thousands of customer beams per satellite has been previously unheard of. And if the DoD were to need it, we can also lump the beams together to get more throughput for the military.

GSR: When we say NGSO we’re effectively talking about LEO and MEO. Are there any particular advantages to these different orbits for the military? Why would the military want to choose services in one orbit over the other?

Jon Bennett: It all goes back to Fighting SATCOM. There is a need for GEO, MEO, and LEO, because you need to have all three orbits to truly complicate an enemy’s attack and targeting calculus.

Where you don’t have to rely on MILSAT at WGS, you can rely on COMSAT and seamlessly transition from one orbit to the another. And the standout advantages are the high throughput and low latency it provides. The closer you are to the to the Earth’s surface, the lower the latency will be. But the issue there is the lack of security on LEO assets. Look at what happened to the assets that were leveraged in Ukraine and how quickly Russia was able to degrade them.

With our MEO capabilities, the level of ability for the enemy to degrade is certainly not going to be the same. And there isn’t going to be a whole lot of packet loss. What that does is enable the U.S. government and its military to knowingly leverage a secure asset that has virtually the same level of latency as LEO. That to us is extremely important.

The ability for a Pentagon decision maker to act on intelligence in near real time from a tactical brigade unit, in theater and in the fight via ISR efforts is very impactful. For example, during the early days of Afghanistan, if you came across a treasure trove hardware with critical information on them, you used to have to rip out the hard drives, fly them back via a CH-47 Chinook, attempt to exfiltrate the information, and then days later you’ll be able to have some actionable intelligence.

We’re providing the ability to act on intelligence in near real time based on the fact that we offer low latency and high-throughput within those two orbital slots. That is why the military views LEO and MEO as particular advantages over GEO.

To learn more about NGSO and what to look for when selecting a satellite solution, click HERE.

The post SES Space and Defense demonstrates emerging NGSO satellite solutions to Congress appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

But why is there such a significant focus on satellite architecture resiliency that it’s one of the Space Force’s largest priorities for the coming year? One only has to look at some of the recent events involving satellite communications in Europe for an answer.

Today’s advanced military platforms and systems are all network and software enabled. These systems require connectivity to function as intended and meet warfighter requirements. And satellite is the best way to provide that connectivity in geographic locations where terrestrial networks are either denied, degraded, untrusted, or insecure – like many of the places where the military operates.

But satellite communications (SATCOM) deliver more than advanced IT capabilities to the warfighter. SATCOM is instrumental for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and situational awareness. It’s also the main conduit for basic communications services in austere environments.

By distributing military signals over a wide ecosystem of military and commercial satellite resources, it becomes incredibly difficult for adversaries to identify which satellites are carrying military communications and deny them through jamming or kinetic attack.

The near-peer adversaries that America and its coalition partners are confronted with today know that satellite is fundamental and mission-critical for so many military operations. And they’ll do anything to deny access to the satellite services that are both basic necessity and force-multiplier.

We’ve seen this play out in real-time in the current situation in Eastern Europe. As fighting began, one of the first casualties was connectivity and communications from terrestrial networks. Then, the satellite service that was utilized to fill that communications void was almost immediately denied by the adversary.

Regardless of whether this communications disruption was meant to hinder military communications, capabilities, and coordination – or simply to cause confusion and a lack of reliable information for civilians – is secondary. It is evidence that denying satellite communications networks and infrastructure is now a large part of warfare – and will remain so into the future. This is why the military now considers space an austere environment and a warfighting domain.

Augmenting military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) with commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) has long been considered a solution for increasing resiliency. By distributing military signals over a wide ecosystem of military and commercial satellite resources, it becomes incredibly difficult for adversaries to identify which satellites are carrying military communications and deny them through jamming or kinetic attack.

Today’s advanced military platforms and systems are all network and software enabled. These systems require connectivity to function as intended and meet warfighter requirements. And satellite is the best way to provide that connectivity…

But what about coalition partners and allied nations with no readily available, purpose-built MILSATCOM architecture? How can they get immediate access to resilient, military-grade satellite communications should a threat arise?

These are exactly the types of situations that a new generation of commercial X-band satellite solutions was made for.

X-band on demand
X-band and military Ka-band satellite communications have long been trusted by the U.S. Department of Defense because of their reliability and resilience. As Patti Aston, a Senior Director at SES Space and Defense, recently explained to the Government Satellite Report, “…X-band [is] considered more reliable – or more mission-assured for critical operations. And when the lives of tactical operators and warfighters are on the line, the military doesn’t want to take the chance that there could be interference or signal loss.”

Access to commercially-delivered X-band and military Ka-band satellite capacity has increased more recently with the introduction of services like tactiXs – an end-to-end managed service that delivers secure, non-preemptible X-band capabilities to customers on an on-demand basis.

These managed services enable governments and militaries without existing, purpose-built military satellite resources to quickly and easily gain access to resilient, reliable X-band and military Ka-band satellite communications at a moment’s notice. There is no special or proprietary hardware necessary to access the service, and no ground infrastructure necessary.  COTS X-band terminals are used to gain access.  Governments and militaries can simply acquire the satellite services they need – for a specified period of time or for a prescribed amount of data throughput – and begin using them immediately.

The near-peer adversaries that America and its coalition partners are confronted with today know that satellite is fundamental and mission-critical for so many military operations. And they’ll do anything to deny access to the satellite services that are both basic necessity and force-multiplier.

“[tactiXs] gives the military user tremendous flexibility and agility. They now have on-demand access to X-band capabilities on an as-needed basis. And they don’t have to buy the capacity on a long-term basis,” Aston explained. “Since [tactiXs] is a managed service, they also don’t have to provide the ground infrastructure. The ground stations and teleports – everything necessary to enable access – is provided for them.”

Resilient SATCOM is as essential to today’s military as any weapons system or platform being issued to – or deployed with – the warfighter. It provides the connectivity for next-generation, network-enabled systems. It enables ISR and situational awareness. And it becomes the backbone of even the most basic of communications services when terrestrial networks are denied.

Commercial X-band managed services can ensure that the connectivity governments and militaries need is available immediately. They also can deliver the resiliency and reliability necessary for mission-critical communications.

For additional information on tactiXs, click HERE.

The post Commercial X-Band Managed Services the Key to On-Demand Resilient Comms appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Throughout the symposium, the space domain took center stage in panel discussions about the U.S. Space Force’s plan to move forward in modernizing and digitally transforming its network architecture and systems, in order to establish freedom of action in the space domain, while simultaneously being able to deny the same freedom to our adversaries.

In one specific session, “Airmen and Guardians in the Fight,” Gen. John “Jay” Raymond, Chief of Space Operations at the U.S. Space Force, outlined the requirements and measures that would need to be taken to accelerate the change that will lead to U.S. superiority in the space domain.

According to Gen. Raymond, the keys to moving with and innovating at the speed of the ever-changing space race include leveraging the “explosion” of innovation that is coming out of the commercial industry and deploying a new, resilient space architecture that would put the U.S. in an advantageous position over its adversaries.

Commercial industry would strengthen defense industrial base

According to Gen. Raymond, to deliver advanced, military relevant capabilities at speed, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) must begin strengthening its ties with the commercial industry and relying more on the technological advancements and innovations that are coming out of the private sector.

“I think there’s great advantage with commercial industry,” said Gen. Raymond. “There’s been an explosion of business going on…We want to be able to leverage them.”

“The big focus area for us this year…is shifting our space architecture to a new, more resilient architecture by the design of the force.” – Gen. Raymond.

Quoting last November’s State of the Space Industrial Base 2021 report, Gen. Raymond stated that the industrial base is “tactically strong but strategically fragile.” To combat the “fragile” state of the space domain’s industrial base, he believes that the DoD should embrace the opportunities the private sector presents to the military and expand the industrial base to more innovative players. Doing so would provide the modern and effective systems, capabilities, and approaches that are required in delivering space superiority for the U.S.

Gen. Raymond recognizes that the role of the space domain has drastically changed since he began his career. Previously viewed as a benign arena, he explained that space is now “the most dynamic and complex security environment in three generations.”

Near-peer competitors like China have spent more than three decades building a space warfighting architecture that has the same advantageous capabilities that the U.S. employs today. “They built it for a purpose,” Gen. Raymond emphasized. “That coupled with the spectrum of threats that we’re seeing from low-end, reversible jamming to high-end kinetic destruction, it’s a different domain. And it requires a different approach.”

The private sector has already created the solutions and capabilities the military needs to protect and secure American assets in space. With near-peer competitors being close to outpacing U.S. capabilities in the domain, relying on the commercial industry would better prepare and position the military with solutions and systems that would defend against the innovations and advancements of our adversaries.

The path to a resilient space architecture

In the past few months, Gen. Raymond has expressed that 2022 is going to be the year of the resilient space architecture for the Space Force – a sentiment he also echoed at the AFA panel. “The big focus area for us this year, and for the next decade, is shifting our space architecture to a new, more resilient architecture by the design of the force,” said Gen. Raymond.

“Our joint coalition forces require the space capabilities that we provide. They can’t be treated as a given anymore.” – Gen. Raymond

“The capabilities that we have in space are exquisite. They’re small in numbers, and they’re not easily defendable. Our joint coalition forces require the space capabilities that we provide. They can’t be treated as a given anymore. We’re going to continue to provide those capabilities and do so in a way that’s more resilient.”

According to Gen. Raymond, warfighting is on the precipice of a major evolution. He emphasized that the U.S. is pitted against adversaries that have – if deterrence were to fail – incredible space capabilities for their own use. “As countries are developing capabilities to deny us our access to space, we can’t take it for granted,” said Gen. Raymond. “And you got to be able to protect and defend it.”

When the DoD invests time and money on the in-house design, testing, and deployment of limited, stovepipe solutions, adversaries who leverage their own nation’s commercial sector have the chance to surpass and deny the U.S. access to its systems and capabilities. Calling back to the need for commercial industry innovation and input, the federal government does not need to reinvent the wheel. The path to a resilient space architecture begins with turning to the existing capabilities and systems that private industry has already created.

Industry is waiting in the wings

The conversation around commercial space and satellite industries’ roles in supporting military innovation in the space domain is not just limited to Space Force leadership. In fact, Congress added a call in FY22’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that requires the DoD to report on its utilization of COMSATCOM services from non-geostationary orbits (NGSO) for delivering connectivity to the warfighter.

Though the NDAA directive doesn’t necessarily signal a heavier reliance on space industry leaders, it does acknowledge the unmistakably growing role that industry is playing in the defense and security of space as a warfighting domain.

In a recent interview with the Government Satellite Report, Gen. Curtis Michael Scaparrotti – a retired U.S. Army four-star general who served as the Commander of United States European Command – discussed how the innovation the commercial satellite industry is critical in building resilient network architectures.

“Commercial satellite providers are the engines of innovation, providing capabilities today and on the horizon that are quite promising,” said Gen. Scaparrotti. Speaking specifically about commercial satellite providers, Gen. Scaparrotti explained, “They are developing capabilities that reduce vulnerabilities and increase the resiliency of networks by positioning, numbers, and capabilities of systems, intra-satellite capabilities, and the flexibility of ground stations.”

Amit Katti, Principal Engineer at SES Space and Defense, shared Gen. Scaparrotti’s opinion in a recent interview about Hydra – SES Space and Defense’s new Common Operational Picture platform. “An integrated [COMSATCOM and MILSATCOM] architecture allows the military to leverage the investments the commercial sector has made in innovative technologies,” said Katti.

“Advanced commercial technologies have added benefits, including increased resilience to interference, jamming, or environmental effects, far more rapid resource allocation, improved situational awareness, and increased bandwidth utilization efficiencies.”

For additional information on how COMSATCOM capabilities can help make the military’s satellite architecture more resilient and capable, click HERE to download a complimentary copy of the whitepaper, “O3b mPOWER for U.S. Government Missions.”

The post Gen. Raymond: Leveraging commercial industry would deliver space superiority appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Penney began the forum by explaining that today’s Air Force warfighters employ a fixed set of capabilities and software that were decided upon “at least five years ago, if not longer.” But to outpace U.S. adversaries, Penney argues that “warfighters must have the ability to tailor their systems and networks to optimize their force package for any given objective.”

One of the key findings of Penney’s study is that there is a need for rapid adaptation of “blue forces” in order to accelerate change. Through her research, she was able to identify three principles that would facilitate this adaptive change.

The first is speed. Adaptation must be faster than “old blue,” and outpace U.S. adversaries’ levels of speed and adaptation.

The second principle is that adaptive changes must provide real operational benefit. Penney stated, “It doesn’t have to be perfect. Just better.” She also explained that operational benefits must be relevant to the competitive context.

The final principle Penney’s research identified was that adaptive change must “impose confounding effects upon the adversary and confer resilient complexity to friendly forces.” Adaptive changes must block effective targeting of blue forces by U.S. adversaries.

Penney pointed out that future operational concepts like multi-domain or all domain operations and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) seek to harness these principles. According to Penney, the key to harnessing these principles can be found in how the Air Force uses weapon systems and aircraft in “new and creative ways.”

Additionally, operational architectures, how the Air Force fights, what they have in the battle space, and their interdependencies will be the main points of adaptive advantage. Battle networks and data links are the base of how the Air Force fights. And, according to Penney, “This will only increase in the future.”

The Air Force will also need to be able to adapt its architectures faster than U.S. adversaries can attack them. And at the heart of this adaptation are mission integration tools.

Unfortunately, there is one major barrier standing in the way of fully realizing this adaptation and mission integration. Penney explained that the primary roadblock to being able to field these software tools is bureaucratic policy.

According to Penney the “color of money,” is the first bureaucratic policy barrier. She explained, “The funding categories are fundamentally ill suited for the pace of software development. The rate at which we obligate money for different activities, and the limitations we have on who can spend what for what prevents us from fielding software tools.”

We must address these bureaucratic barriers to fielding mission integration software tools that can provide our forces an adaptive advantage.” – Heather Penney

The second barrier is a lack of a dedicated system program office. Data links are typically managed as part of the overall capability package of the major weapon system. Penney explained, “They’re subjugated to those developmental and monetization timelines and program priorities. Too often, mission integration falls below the cut line.”

The final barrier to adaptive change is the need for data link architecture to reflect operational concepts. Because different kinds of data links are incompatible, there is a need to translate and optimize heterogenous connectivity. And due to network terminals being static, change is difficult.

To accelerate change, Penney argued, “We must address these bureaucratic barriers to fielding mission integration software tools that can provide our forces an adaptive advantage.”

Currently, the Air Force builds its network through systems engineering, which figures out how to best fit these fixed systems together. Instead, the Air Force should focus on moving towards a mission integration approach. According to Penney, there must be a shift from a “What can we do?” mindset, to a “What do we want to do?” approach. And the software tools that enable this adaptive approach already exist.

The first tool is DARPA’s System-of-systems Technology Integration Tool Chain for Heterogenous Electronic Systems (STITCHES) program. STITCHES enables message translation across different systems without changing message formatting or losing data, and it does not require a common standard.

Second, is DARPA’s Adapting Cross-domain Kill-webs (ACK) vision integration tool. ACK is a decision software that can analyze thousands of potential cross-domain kill webs to recommend the best mission-specific kill chain.

The last tool that Penney cited was DARPA’s Dynamic Network Adaptation for Mission Optimization (DyNAMO) program. DyNAMO is a program that automatically routes data to the user who needs it in real-time, and manages the flow and prioritization of data so that lower priority does not create a traffic jam for higher priority data.

Penney explained that the Air Force could start fielding these tools immediately, but bureaucratic policy roadblocks still stand in the way.

One bureaucratic policy barrier that Penney discussed was Congress’ creation of the Budget Activity 8 (BA 8) funding category, which is intended to capture the full lifecycle of software in one category. But, unfortunately, BA 8 cannot be applied to broad area announcements, which are critical contractual means for research agencies.

Another layer of complication is that research agencies are prevented from using any budget activity beyond BA 4. Essentially, research agencies like DARPA and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) are constrained in how they can fund the development of software programs.

Mission integration tools also have challenges of their own pertaining to their transition to an operational community. Penney explained that the adaptive nature of these programs has been defined by General Counsel as research and development (R&D) or as Penney put it “3600 money.” She explained, “…3600 money cannot be programmed or obligated by an operational command like the Air Combat Command.”

In essence, the “color of money” is hindering speedy software development and is blocking these tools from reaching the warfighter. As a result, Air Force networks remain static and predictable, enabling the adversary’s strategy for victory.

No war was ever won by spreadsheet. It’s time we make the bureaucratic changes that will accelerate our operational change.” – Heather Penney

To remedy these challenges, Penney argued that research agencies need access to this funding, and they must have the option to do so using a broad area announcement.

Research agencies must also be able to streamline these software programs to the operational community “without necessarily requiring a full and open competition that extends the timeline to field and may not deliver the same code.”

Lastly, Penney called for operational commands to have a similar budget activity – like BA 8 – that enables them to “employ, sustain and evolve mission integration tools at the speed of software.”

“We need mission integration tools because they can connect and be the bridge between our legacy force, our current force, and our future force,” said Penney. “These mission integration tools can enable these kinds of operations today.”

She explained that the Air Force risks losing its ability to deter and win when in peer conflict due to bureaucratic policy. “We’re letting bean counters and administrative processes guide what we can field and how we can fight, not combat requirements,” said Penney. “No war was ever won by spreadsheet. It’s time we make the bureaucratic changes that will accelerate our operational change.”

To hear more from Heather Penney watch the Mitchell Institute event on-demand here!

The post How bureaucratic policy is enabling U.S. adversaries to outpace the Air Force appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

In her current role as the scientific advisor to the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, she stands at the intersection of where government and industry meet, and she is ready to get after identifying and analyzing the technical challenges facing the Air Force today.

On May 18, 2021, Dr. Coleman sat down for a one-on-one interview during the Mitchell Institute’s Aerospace Nation to discuss the Air Force’s science and technology landscape, how the current microelectronic shortage is impacting the Air Force, and the importance of protecting the branch’s digital infrastructure in light of recent cyberattacks.

Dr. Coleman opened the forum by discussing the critical challenges her team is facing, as well as her top priorities going into the future. Throughout her entire computer science and technology career, Dr. Coleman has been trying to inch closer to fusing research into practice. When she started out in academia, she would become frustrated that the work that was being done in the lab would never see the light of day.

Because of this, she thinks a lot about the context and the technology environment within which the Air Force pursues its mission, which has changed in subtle ways over the years. Dr. Coleman commented that most of the innovation that the Air Force depended on used to come from the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). But today, the Air Force’s technology landscape operates differently.

Dr. Coleman explained that today’s Air Force is heavily influenced and shaped by retail and consumer technology. As a result, the branch has trouble satisfying its needs with the science and technology that comes from the private sector. And Dr. Coleman believes that it’s twice as difficult if the technology comes from consumer marketplace.

U.S. competitors on the world stage do not have this problem, Dr. Coleman explained. For instance, China has the Military Civil Fusion (MCF) which Chinese President Xi Jinping personally oversees. MCF’s objective is to make sure that every single innovation that happens in the private sector is harnessed to support China’s drive to become the premier military power in the world.

This baked-in partnership between industry and military doesn’t exist in the same form within the United States. This has created a challenge for Dr. Coleman and her department. However, during her remarks, she made it clear that this is a struggle that she anxious to overcome, looking forward to bridging that gap in absorbing technology into her department’s mission.

When speaking about the Air Force’s Science and Technology (S&T) strategy, she proudly boasts that it’s the most well-structured strategy that she’s seen in a long time. To her, the S&T strategy that the department put forward in 2018 is an exemplar of what a strategy should be, and that it goes beyond just simply listing accepted technologies.

Dr. Coleman believes that the strategy does a fantastic job of putting the technology in context of how it is used in the Air Force. And when there isn’t a technology that is available, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) will build out the necessary capabilities. Dr. Coleman explained that the S&T strategy plays a critical role as the Air Force aligns its resources and efforts to make innovation happen and matter.

When asked about the Air Force’s main technological opportunities and hurdles that it needs to overcome, Dr. Coleman said that they are hoping to achieve change in five different domains:

• Global persistence awareness
• Resilient information sharing
• Rapid effective decision-making
• Complexity, unpredictability, and mass
• Speed and reach of disruption and lethality.

She said that she thinks about the “how” behind executing those goals quite often. She believes the answer is that they can achieve it by building out transformational cross-cutting capabilities.

Now that she’s on the inside, Dr. Coleman is encouraged to see how much change has already taken place, and how mindful and deliberate the change has been on behalf of the “how” component. She explained that the Air Force has a massive mission. They have to train, organize, and equip for today and for tomorrow with a massive set of missions. And they must be smart in how they can effectively approach all of the needs that they have.

When asked how the current microelectronic manufacturing crisis is impacting the Air Force, Dr. Coleman responded by saying that microelectronics are the driving force behind the execution of Air Force missions. She explained that the Air Force needs advanced components that are available, performant, trustworthy, and affordable.

“We can’t execute the missions that we need to execute without high-end microelectronics in those systems,” she said. “We really don’t have an option. We can’t operate with antique parts and expect the levels of performance or support the missions that we know we need to fight, without making those components available.”

She said that in order to secure these components for the Air Force, it takes partnerships within the Department of Defense (DoD). The Under Secretary for Research and Engineering (R&E) and his counterparts in Acquisition and Sustainment (A&S) have made microelectronics their number one priority. In the past three or four years, they’ve put together a significant roadmap to produce mission-critical parts in order to secure, grow, and revitalize the domestic fabrication capability.

When asked if the Air Force is ready to begin fielding the technologies to enable human-machine teams, Dr. Coleman responded by saying that—in many ways—the Air Force has been operating human-machine teams for many years. Her personal assessment is that the way to deploy more human-machine teams is through more experimentation.

She said, “When we think about how we form human teams, how do we do that? …We form teams by building trust in each other. And we build trust in each other… by working together. By watching each other in action.”

She believes that human-machine teams will be no different, and that trust will be built in the machines once they see them in execution. And that the team that deploys, experiments, and learns more about each other will be the teams that succeeds. She explained that she has a cast iron belief that in order to produce big, transformational systems, one must “build a little, test a little, and field a little.”

When the conversation turned to the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), she admitted that she is hardly an expert on the subject. She did say that she doesn’t think that within the Air Force, the ABMS meets the standard requirements of what a program is. She believes that it’s a very advanced concept, but that it’s not a program.

She described ABMS as a very ambitious effort, and though she hopes it will succeed, she doesn’t know if it will. Returning to her motto, she said that having grand visions is important, but they must also deliver capability incrementally.

When asked about the importance of protecting the Air Force’s network infrastructure in light of recent cyberattacks, Dr. Coleman said, “I think that a lot of the infrastructure that we use will eventually need to come out from the commercial sector. From the world out there that has built it, has deployed it, has scaled it, has operated it, and has learned what works and what doesn’t work.”

She explained that if the approach is to custom-build it for themselves and avoid the pitfalls the private sector has encountered, then “we are kidding ourselves.”

According to Dr. Coleman, one of the worst aspects of the inability to field new science and technology in the department is that when they deploy it, it can take years to close vulnerability gaps and loopholes. She said that there are no systems that have zero vulnerabilities, and the longer they have it out there without addressing exposures, the more time the adversary has to find all of those vulnerabilities and exploit them.

To hear more from Dr. Coleman watch the Aerospace Nation forum on-demand here!

The post Slow and steady wins the Air Force’s science and technology race appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

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.

Expected to be internally available this summer, the strategy aligns with the Space Force’s recently released vision for satellite communications (SATCOM), said Clare Grason, chief of the Commercial SATCOM Office at the Space Force. That vision paper, released in February, calls for a robust and integrated architecture encompassing both military and commercial assets.

Speaking at the Satellite ’20 conference organized by Access Intelligence, Grason said the strategy will consolidate existing contracts with industry providers and establish service level agreements with the SATCOM Office’s Department of Defense (DoD) customers.  “We believe that will enable us to have more flexibility in our commercial SATCOM procurements and have much greater readiness,” she said.

The strategy will give commanders a holistic view of available SATCOM capabilities and the ability to shift resources as requirements dynamically change, without having to negotiate new contracts, Grason said. “We would just have to modify the [service level agreements] we have with our customers, which is much easier than having to go back out to industry and do that in the form of a new contract or contract modification,” she said.

Formerly a part of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Commercial SATCOM office is responsible for procuring commercial satellite connectivity for DoD customers. Currently the procurement process is highly fragmented, with about 100 different contracts currently in place and 30 deals being negotiated at any given time, Grason said.

Nonetheless, the Commercial SATCOM Office has a clear understanding of demand across its customer base, Grason said.

“So in essence, we want to aggregate our collective buying power and do a central procurement,” she said. “And in turn, distribute that capability that we’re centrally buying the form of service level agreements with our customers.”

Some important details of the consolidation strategy are still being worked out, Grason said. These include the formulas for reapportioning both the contracts and the requirements, she said.

The forthcoming strategy is the latest development in what many experts say is the long overdue change in the DoD’s approach to commercial SATCOM procurement. It follows the transfer of the Commercial SATCOM Office from DISA to what is now the Space Force, which owns and operates satellites dedicated to military and other customers. The transfer was designed to give planners a holistic view of the DoD’s satellite communications requirements.

Grason said there will always be a need for government-owned capabilities, but that commercial systems have a critical role to play. “Customers are choosing commercial SATCOM for the superiority and efficiency it often brings to the fight,” she said.

The nascent strategy reflects a broader embrace among the Pentagon leadership of commercial capabilities.

In a keynote address at the conference, Air Force Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of the Space Force, said commercial sector has become a driver of innovation in several technology areas. “Our job is to try to keep pace and leverage to the best we can all of that innovation that’s going on in the commercial sector,” he said.

The commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) sector, in particular, has been a hotbed of innovation in recent years, as companies take advantage of technological advances and different orbits to deploy capabilities the government would otherwise not have available.

“We’re no longer viewed as an augmentation to government capabilities but rather as an integral part of the architecture,” said Pete Hoene, President and Chief Executive Officer of SES Space and Defense, the government services arm of satellite operator SES.  “The result will be an integrated enterprise architecture that provides increased capabilities to the warfighter improved levels of resiliency and greater cost efficiencies.”

SES operates satellites in geostationary and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), offering a diverse blend of capabilities to government and commercial customers. The multi-orbit arrangement allows the government to tap into additional connectivity solutions beyond WGS and an additional orbit fora disaggregated and resilient COMSATCOM architecture.

During a separate panel discussion at the conference, John Klein, a professor at the George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and an advisor to the U.S. government agencies on space policy and strategy, said commercial space capabilities play a key role in deterrence by making the overall architecture more resilient. Having a robust commercial capability can help convince potential adversaries of the futility of attacking space systems as a means of gaining military advantage, he said.

Mir H. Sadat, director of critical enablers at the White House National Space Council, said there is no doubt that relationships with the commercial space sector make an enormous contribution to overall national security. “It creates a huge, diverse and exponentially larger robust system for us” that eliminates the ability of adversaries to take out a critical U.S. capability, he said.

Feature image courtesy of Tech. Sgt. David Salanitri, United States Space Force.

The post Space Force to centralize commercial satellite procurement 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.

As Gen. Goldfein explained, his vision for future multi-domain operations, “…isn’t just about the domains…nor is it just about executing operations across these domains, we already do that now. Where we’re going is to use dominance in one domain or many, blending a few capabilities or many, to produce multiple dilemmas for our adversaries in a way that will overwhelm them. This is where we’re going.”

On display in the video presentation was a fictional military situation being responded to by the military that Gen. Goldfein claimed we’d need in 2030 – and the force that he and his contemporaries are prepared to create for our nation. And, from my seat in the National Harbor’s Gaylord resort, it was certainly impressive.

The vignette illustrated an integrated and collaborative approach to multi-domain operations that showcased how sea, air, land, space and cyber operations – working collaboratively – could be pressed into service to quickly respond to escalating aggressions from an adversary and almost immediately repel a fictional invasion of an imaginary allied nation.

And while the vignette and presentation was impressive and aspirational, it was also frustrating for some in the room. That’s because, while it incorporated coalition forces in practically every domain, it was obviously missing something that the Air Force has claimed it would increasingly rely upon in the future – commercial satellites.

Why commercial satellite matters
While there are many things that commercial satellite services could deliver to the military, there are two specific benefits that I really consider the most important – innovation and resiliency. And both of those things could have been used by the fictional force in Gen. Goldfein’s vignette.

Air Force senior leadership has admitted on numerous occasions that the commercial satellite industry is the clear leader in space today. It’s the leader because it moves quickly and must satiate the world’s enormous appetite for satellite capacity.

Commercial satellite providers are constantly building and launching new satellites to replace aging spacecraft and to fill the capacity requirements of their customers. With the nearly constant and rapid pace of satellite development, construction and launch, the commercial satellite industry gets frequent opportunities to incorporate the latest and greatest technology advancements into their satellites.

Compare this to how the military has traditionally operated. The military has been building and launching similar WGS satellites for a decade. And the time it takes the military to design, develop, build and launch a new satellite means that, by the time they launch a new satellite, the technologies on it are no longer cutting edge.

When it comes to resiliency, commercial satellite providers have been long fighting against the misconception that their services are in some way less resilient and secure than military satellites. And there is a good reason why that misconception exists, there are demonstrated benefits to operating in the X band frequency, as satellite expert, Phil Harlow, recently articulated in another article on the Government Satellite Report:

“With only ten [X band] WGS satellites in orbit, there is less chance of adjacent satellite interference. This means that more power can be put down from each satellite without fear of interfering with other, adjacent satellites (or being interfered with by other satellites). This higher power results in a stronger signal on the ground that further overcomes attenuation from environmental factors, increases throughputs and improves link reliability.”

However, the small number of WGS satellites creates a resiliency problem itself. If a near-peer adversary is looking to deny the military’s satellite services – which have long been a strategic edge for our military – they only have ten potential satellites to target.

This lack of diversity makes it easier for enemies to target and deny satellite capabilities, which is why Kimberly Morris, satellite communications operations division head at the U.S. Naval Network Warfare Command recently called for an increase in satellite options when she said, “We need diversity – we need a wide range of diversity,” at this summer’s Milsatcom USA Conference.

By utilizing commercial satellites in conjunction with military satellites, the ecosystem of potential satellites that could be carrying military signals increases from ten to more than 150. This not only can help disrupt an adversary’s targeting calculus, but also provide back-ups should military satellites be denied. As Morris said at the same event, “You go after our [military-owned] systems, I’ve got something else that I can get to. Historically, with a lot of the weapon systems that are brought to bear in the modern age, it’s not the primary system that has been a hero, it’s the secondary system, because the enemy puts so much effort into taking out that primary system.”

With the potential to increase resiliency and bring new, innovative solutions to bear, it’s clear that commercial satellite needs to be a part of military plans in the future. So why wasn’t it in the vignette? Especially since it could have been so beneficial?

What could have been – and what will be
During Gen. Goldfein’s vignette, the two coalition military satellites being relied upon for communications in every other domain were jammed by adversary space assets. The response of the coalition forces in the vignette were to bomb targets deep in enemy territory and relocate military spacecraft – which is an extremely time-consuming and risky response.

How would that have played out if this futuristic force was utilizing a combined commercial and military satellite architecture?

First, the adversary would have struggled mightily to target the correct satellites. Today’s commercial satellite industry operates innovative new satellites in more orbits than just the traditional geostationary orbit. With more than 150 satellites in multiple different orbits – including GEO, MEO and LEO – that could have been transmitting military communications in theater, the adversary would have struggled mightily to identify which satellite to target for jamming or even kinetic attacks.

Should the adversary jammed or denied the correct satellites, the coalition forces in the vignette would have had an even easier, far less risky response should they have been using an integrated commercial and military satellite architecture. They simply could have relocated a digitally-steered beam from a different commercial satellite – possibly even one in a different orbit – to deliver high-throughput, low-latency connectivity to the battlefield.

No jets would have needed to be scrambled, no military satellites would have needed to expend precious fuel to be repositioned, and no pilots’ lives would have needed to be risked.

This is why Ken Peterman, the President of Government Systems at Viasat recently told attendees at a panel discussion during SATELLITE 2019 that, “…within government circles, support continues to build for a DoD, hybrid, multi-network adaptive enterprise so that the DoD has the improved resiliency, improved mobility and improved flexibility to take full advantage of commercial innovation.”

So, where do we stand with that “hybrid, multi-network adaptive enterprise,” or integrated commercial and military satellite architecture? I asked Gen. John Raymond, the Commander of United States Space Command, during a media roundtable at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, and he assured us that it’s still on the table – even if it’s not in vignettes.

When asked about the potential to utilize satellites of different sizes and in different orbits, General Raymond responded, “I think what we’ll see in the future is a more hybrid architecture which would provide us with more resiliency.“ And adding commercial satellite to the military’s network architecture and infrastructure was also a priority for Gen. Raymond moving forward.

When asked about the timing and roadmap towards this combined architecture, the General responded, “[The Air Force] had several meetings with the commercial industry to partner with them on a vision going forward. I expect to publish a vision document towards that end in the coming months. 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.”

Both the military and the satellite industry see the potential that an integrated commercial and military satellite architecture could have for our nation’s multi-domain operations in the future. If we’re going to truly win the battle for space and utilize satellites as part of a military response that will, “produce multiple dilemmas for our adversaries in a way that will overwhelm them,” then commercial satellite needs to be an integral part of the Air Force’s plans now and into the future.

Featured image courtesy of the Air Force Association.

The post AFA Conference makes it clear – integrated satellite architecture essential for multi-domain ops appeared first on SES Space and Defense.