The answer may not be as cut and dry as some would think. Military decision makers are increasingly relying on data-centric operations and capabilities that require high bandwidth connections in theater. They’re demanding ISR comprised of high definition, real time video instead of static, low quality images. They want geospatial intelligence available to soldiers to ensure that have knowledge of the terrain around them and the movements of alliance forces.

Satellite connectivity is necessary for filling these connectivity and bandwidth requirements abroad. In places where terrestrial networks have never been built, or can’t be trusted, satellite can deliver bandwidth for mission-critical capabilities. This is especially the case in places like the AFRICOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), where, as Brigadier General Christopher Eubank, the Commandant of the U.S. Army Signal School claimed, “We relied heavily on SATCOM in the AFRICOM AOR. That is a place in the world where they skipped generations of IT. They went from copper to 4G LTE. There is not a lot of CAT5 and CAT6 cable in that country.”

The Army remains one of the largest consumers of satellite services for a very good reason – they’re extremely large and really spread out geographically. To get IT capabilities to the warfighter at the tip of the spear – sometimes in the world’s most isolated and remote locations – satellite is essential. So, with satellite playing such a vital role in a modern military, why is it so hard for the Army to get the bandwidth they need at a faster rate?

What are the warfighters concerns?
If something was essential for your survival and wellbeing, you’d want it close by or relatively easy to find. People that need to take medicine to survive don’t usually let their prescriptions run out. So, why is satellite connectivity so difficult for the Army to access? Especially with the military owning and operating their own satellite constellation – the Wideband Global Satellite (WGS) system?

Part of the challenge lies with WGS, itself. There are simply too many stakeholders and internal customers within the military for the bandwidth that’s available via WGS.

If military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) isn’t going to be available to Army users, then commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) needs to be there to fill those holes. Unfortunately, getting COMSATCOM services has never been fast or easy for the branches of the military.

According to Mike Nichols, the Chief of the Commercial SATCOM Technical Support Branch at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), “This is a very transactional business…each requirement that comes in is an individual acquisition. Generally, we have plus or minus 100 contracts…for SATCOM services. Each one of these is an individual acquisition, and acquisitions can take some time…If I hear one thing from my customer it’s that the acquisition takes too long.”

The reason for the delay comes down to how satellite service procurement is conducted, and they’re often conducted just like acquisitions for everything else – from rations to tanks.

As Mr. Nichols explained, historically, COMSATCOM services have been acquired in singular transactions to fill individual needs on the spot market. This is effectively the most expensive way to purchase satellite bandwidth. It also puts military users in a situation where they’re purchasing whatever satellite bandwidth is left available, since most of the capacity has already been sold to commercial customers.

As the CEO of SES Space and Defense, Pete Hoene, explained, “Only 10-20 percent of revenue for COMSATCOM owner/operators comes from the U.S. government. The majority is from commercial customers that strike long term contracts and business relationships with owner/operators to ensure they get exactly what they need at an affordable price. This is very different from the U.S. Government buying capacity on the spot market using LPTA contracts that sub optimize on performance, cause a race to the bottom on pricing, and provide little incentive for industry to invest in capabilities the U.S. Government needs.”

However, there has been some positive movement away from purchasing, LPTA (“lowest price, technically acceptable,”) satellite connectivity on the spot market. One of these positive steps was the recent blanket purchase agreement (BPA) that the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded to SES for their O3b MEO satellite services.

This BPA allows military users to purchase SES O3b MEO managed services up to $516.7 million over five-years. By putting the BPA in place, the DoD has been able to drastically cut the amount of time needed to acquire satellite services.

The BPA, and its ability to cut acquisition time, was touted by Mr. Nichols, who said, “We’re initiating a number of Blanket Purchase Agreements. This cuts the acquisition time down to a remarkable level, really, when you think about it…Most BPA task orders can be awarded within 17 business days.”

But that could be 17 days too many when mission-critical satellite solutions are needed. When a problem arises, the Combatant Commands (COCOMS) face massive pressure to have connectivity available immediately, like it would be in a commercial environment.

Brig. Gen. Christopher Eubank did an excellent job of describing this pressure when he said, “As a COCOM J6 with an AOR of 53 countries – massive continent – your boss walks in and says, ‘I have a problem in Country X. I need this. I need it now.’ The last thing he wants to hear is that it takes me 17 days to get that bandwidth. Let me explain what he’s expecting. He’s expecting that [it’s similar to when] he walks into Verizon and buys a phone. It’s provisioned and he walks out with a service.”

So, how can the military create a situation where SATCOM services are always available to the warfighter when and where they’re needed?

Partnering for a SATCOM pool
Although the BPA is a step in the right direction, it still takes time between identifying the need for SATCOM solutions and effectively acquiring them through the BPA. In addition, the bulk of satellite purchases outside of the BPA are still done on the spot market. A system that, according to Mr. Hoene, treats COMSATCOM services as a “commodity” and COMSATCOM providers, “just like any old vendor,” when they should be treated, “like a strategic partner,” and the capacity treated as vital infrastructure (similar to the way the U.S. Government buys fiber).

That’s because, by more closely aligning with the satellite industry, the military could find some reasonable alternatives that will make satellite bandwidth more readily accessible at the speed of war.

One concept floated by the panelists involved the creation of a “bandwidth on demand” pool of satellite resources that could be tapped into by military organizations when and where they needed them.

In this instance, satellite resources would be acquired in advance. With tight, restricted budgets, it was difficult for military organizations to spend dollars on something that they wouldn’t benefit from or use immediately. However, the appetite for that could be changing.

According to Mr. Nichols, “One of the areas that we are exploring is establishing a core network…As customers have a demand for service, we would already have a core network in place in various bands for various services that would essentially lead to a very rapid ability to acquire that bandwidth because that bandwidth would already be in place.”

To help make a system like this possible, industry and the military could work together to shape requirements and identify an acquisition model that would work for both parties. This sentiment was shared by Mr. Hoene when he said, “When we talk about bandwidth on demand, we understand that there’s an affordability aspect. There has to be a creative and innovative way to make this happen from a contracts perspective…“

As the discussions at this year’s AUSA SATCOM panel illustrated, today’s military relies too heavily on IT services and capabilities to not have immediate, on-demand access to the secure satellite communications they need to keep the warfighter connected. COMSATCOM providers can no longer be, “just another old vendor.” They are key strategic partners providing a necessary warfighting tool. By working together, the military and satellite industry can identify innovative acquisition models and methods to ensure that satellite connectivity is always there when it’s needed.

The post Army demands consumer-like access to satellite at AUSA appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

This year’s upcoming AUSA Conference comes at a very interesting time for the service. Last year, the Army made the decision to effectively “pull the plug” on the next iteration of its WIN-T IT infrastructure and network for a myriad of reasons. The Army also announced a new, innovative approach to acquisition, which involved the creation of “Cross Functional Teams.”

Simultaneously, the Army is facing many of the same challenges that we heard discussed by the Air Force at the recent AFA Air, Space and Cyber Conference. The adversaries that the military needs to prepare for today are different than what we were focused on for the previous two decades – with near-peer adversaries once more a concern.

With so much change and so many large problems to tackle, this year’s conference is practically guaranteed to generate some interesting discussion and shed some light on the future direction and strategy of the Army. To get a preview of what could be the main points of discussion when it comes to Army networks and satellite requirements, we sat down with Army veteran, military satellite expert and the current Vice President of Government Programs at SES Government Solution, Bill Reiner.

Here is what Bill had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): The annual AUSA meeting and expo is coming up in early October. What do you expect out of this year’s meeting? What do you think will be some of the most consequential topics and issues discussed?

Bill Reiner: One of the things I’m most anticipating and expecting is a report out from the CFTs (Cross Functional Teams). These CFTs were created in early October – right around AUSA 2017 – of last year, and each team is responsible for something different. There are six total teams, one each for:

• Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF)
• Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)
• Future Vertical Lift (FVL)
• Network
• Precision Navigation & Timing (PNT)
• Air & Missile Defense (AMD)
• Soldier Lethality (SL)

Each of these CFTs rolls up into Army Futures Command, which is dedicated to helping modernize the Army, and is aimed at helping the Command identify products and solutions more quickly. The end goal is to enable the Army, as a whole, to acquire solutions in response to adversaries and requirements more quickly.

We’ve already heard some reports out of the Soldier Lethality group focused on longer range missiles. However, we haven’t heard much out of the other CFTs. With AUSA being held at around the one-year anniversary of their creation, I’d expect to hear more about the findings from the CFTs, and some feedback regarding their overall results and effectiveness.

GSR: Often when we talk about the military’s use of satellite, we think about the Air Force, since the space domain currently falls into their area of responsibility. How does the Army utilize satellites? What different capabilities and use cases are powered by satellite for the Army?

Bill Reiner: When it comes to the Army’s use of satellites, you really only have to think about their mission and their structure. If you look at the warfighting functions of the Army – every one of them requires communications. Also, the Army’s personnel are extremely distributed and spread out, which means that communications relies on satellite across all warfighting functions.

Satellite is essential for Command and Control (C&C) within the Army. Intelligence data needs to be transmitted and received at the edge. That requires the ability to pass large files to the edge, and that’s best done via satellite. This is essential if Army commanders are going to know what’s happening on the battlefield and reinforce soldierss as needed. This is also essential for the transmission of large GEOINT files, which are necessary for coordinating and planning troop movements.

Then there are other use cases for satellite within the Army that don’t often get mentioned or thought of. Take sustainment as an example – every logistics and maintenance unit needs a satellite system to access maintenance data, order spare parts, research vehicle maintenance issues, report issues to superiors and otherwise stay connected. If a maintenance team needs tires for a truck, or needs to schedule a refueling stop, the order will be placed and stops will be coordinated via satellite.

Satellite is essential for the Army now, and its importance will only increase in time. Future wars will have intense electronic warfare environments. Satellite allows the Army to operate in those environments globally. That’s especially true with the new generations of satellite that are inherently capable of overcoming jamming and are harder to deny or compromise.

GSR: Last year, the Army announced they were scuttling their investment in the beleaguered WIN-T Increment 2 network and evaluating other options. Why was this decision made?

Bill Reiner: The decision [to terminate WIN-T Increment 2] was made because the Army looked at their mission and what was happening in the world. We are now facing a threat from near-peer adversaries again in the form of Russia and China. These powerful adversaries are threatening our national security and building their military capabilities. With this more sophisticated threat, the Army realized that their networks simply couldn’t hold up.

Also – speaking anecdotally – I have seen through my own personal experience, and through the experience of my son in the Army National Guard, that communications via the existing network were hard to do.

The problem has always come down to the fact that it takes too long for the Army to field new solutions. If it takes a decade to pull together networks, the technology is now archaic. They need to more quickly identify the need, identify the solution and get that solution into the field. In the past, it has taken the Army three years to identify a requirement and then an additional seven years to field the solution – and then it’s no longer state of the art.

The CFTs were put in place to help overcome this. They’re designed to accomplish this by bringing together all of the stakeholders and decision makers under one command. This gets everyone responsible for making acquisition decisions in one place and keeps them engaged with the warfighter to develop what they need more quickly.

With the CFTs, the resourcing, costing and acquisition authority is all there in one spot. This concept was implemented with the intention of bringing the acquisition cycle time down. This enables the CFT to more quickly do technical demonstrations and pilot programs, and more rapidly make decisions to move the Army forward.

GSR: What role do you anticipate satellite – particularly commercial satellite – playing in the next generation Army network? What would make commercial satellite an invaluable part of Army networks moving forward?

Bill Reiner: Ultimately, commercial satellites are critical to supporting Army missions because they provide surge capabilities and fill that essential satellite role when military satellite solutions aren’t available or are depleted. But there are other reasons why commercial SATCOM will be in the Army’s future plans.

The commercial SATCOM industry has proven its ability to enable the military to bring new satellite technology to the user much more quickly. Speed of acquisition and deployment has always been an issue for the Army, commercial satcom helps to overcome that.

Commercial SATCOM providers are constantly innovating and integrating new satellite and new terminal technology that’s easier to use, smaller, lighter and offers more capability. By partnering with industry providers for their satcom requirements, the Army effectively reaps the rewards and benefits from this new technology immediately, instead of having to build and launch these new technologies themselves.

Also, with the move towards managed services across the satellite industry, the Army can get access to  this new technology as part of a managed service. In this format, everything necessary to connect disparate parties within the Army is provided – including ground terminals and antennas – as a recurring fee. With satellite managed services, the Army and other military branches could get access to advanced satellite technologies – including new waveforms that are more jam resistant – much more quickly and at lower cost.

Regardless of what the next generation of Army networks look like, commercial satellite providers are the key to unlocking advanced satellite capabilities and technologies, and bringing their benefits to soldiers more quickly and efficiently.

The post Exploring Army SATCOM requirements post WIN-T in advance of AUSA appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The other major announcement from the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. was that the Army was canceling the WIN-T Increment 2 program and exploring new network options. This could have both positive and negative implications for the Army as it prepared for more advanced adversaries and works to ensure mission assurance for communications systems in the future. The negative implications could arise from the Army’s apparent attempt to reduce dependency on satellite communications – which were the backbone of WIN-T.

But before we talk about the ramifications, let’s discuss the reasoning for a proposed reduction in WIN-T network usage.

More advanced adversaries means more competition in space

It has been a recurring theme across the entire Department of Defense (DoD) for the past few years – space is no longer the ultimate high ground for the United States military. In the past, the U.S. had space capabilities and satellites as a unique differentiator – providing a distinct tactical advantage and edge over our adversaries. That was certainly the case in the country’s recent wars, where our adversaries had no space capabilities available for their use.

But that’s changed significantly over the course of the last decade. Our largest, most advanced adversaries have proven that they can negate our satellite communications and effectively eliminate our tactical advantage from space. They’ve done this with jamming. They’ve done it with kinetic attacks on satellites as well as through intercepting communications.

The Army – and the rest of the DoD – wants mission assurance and readiness. They want to be guaranteed that their networks are ready should threats arise from these larger, more advanced adversaries – and the steps forward that they’ve taken in space causes concern for the DoD.

This concern is compounded by the trends in IT and technology in warfighting. Every new platform being built, evaluated and implemented across the DoD is network-enabled in some way. This was exemplified by General David Goldfein, the Air Force Chief of Staff, at the recent Air Force Association (AFA) Air, Space and Cyber Conference 2017, who repeatedly asked, “Does it connect? Good. Does it share? Even better,” when discussing the next generation of Air Force innovations.

With every platform being network enabled and with an increasing reliance on IT at the tip of the spear, it’s understandable that the Army wants to take steps to ensure that the capabilities that IT affords are always available to the warfighter. Our increasingly sophisticated adversaries put the resiliency of the satellite networks in question.

More advanced satellites means it doesn’t matter

In my last post, I discussed how the DoD’s acquisition processes don’t always move fast enough to ensure that they’re getting the latest technologies, because technology advances so quickly. Something similar is true in satellites.

Satellite technologies have advanced significantly in the past few years – especially among the commercial satellite providers that are constantly refreshing their constellations by building, launching, and bringing new satellites on-line. Today’s SATCOM providers are launching and operating a new generation of High Throughput Satellites (HTS) that not only deliver higher amounts of bandwidth and higher throughputs, but are also less susceptible to jamming. They’re also operating new constellations in different orbits – including LEO and MEO orbits – that can have a huge impact on resiliency.

Instead of looking for alternatives for SATCOM, the Army should be analyzing new satellite technologies and solutions available via commercial SATCOM providers that can help deliver a higher level of resiliency and redundancy in space, and better ensure that IT-fueled capabilities are always available to the warfighter.

Take HTS as an example. The smaller spot beams utilized by HTS satellites make it significantly harder for them to be jammed, since satellite jamming needs to originate within the beam. Couple that with new, protected waveforms being developed and implemented by SATCOM providers, and HTS satellites can deliver far more resiliency in space than previous generations of satellites.

Increased resiliency is possible via the use of MEO and LEO satellite constellations. By disaggregating satellite signals across multiple satellites and orbits, the Army can gain resiliency. In this situation, the adversary simply doesn’t know which satellite to attack, and wouldn’t be able to negate satellite-enabled capabilities even if they did attack one of the correct satellites, since there would be redundancy baked in.

The increased resiliency of these next generation satellite solutions – in tandem with the incredible bandwidth they can deliver to practically anywhere on the planet – makes it clear that satellite should still be the future for the Army. Especially when you consider the alternatives.

Analyzing the alternatives

If satellite isn’t the answer for the Army, what is?

One of the alternatives – tropospheric scatter (TROPO) – involves reflecting – or bouncing – signals off of the troposphere. TROPO is already in use and has been proven as a viable alternative in satellite denied environments. But can it be an alternative to satellite altogether? The answer is undoubtedly, “no.”

TROPO has restrictions and issues that you simply don’t experience with satellite networks. First, it needs a complicated setup process for each new geographic area in which it will be located – eliminating the potential to do comms on the move. In contrast, satellite networks simply require the antenna being pointed in the optimal direction. Also, TROPO can be drastically impacted by weather and other factors. Combined, these restrictions make it an attractive solution as a backup for satellite networks, but in no way an alternative for them.

Another concept that’s been floated by the military has been the use of UAS platforms to deliver signals. This creates the same issues with resiliency – if not more issues – since a UAS flies low enough to be much more easily targeted by adversaries. Although they’re relatively cost effective and could be deployed in large numbers, they could be easily negated by kinetic attacks from adversaries, making them a less reliable and resilient option.

It’s both judicious and sensible that the Army wants to embrace new solutions that would provide mission assurance for their advanced warfighting technologies and IT. But the alternatives to satellite that they could be exploring are all lacking in some way, and could effectively be less resilient and effective for the Army when they need them most. The advanced satellite solutions available today – and coming online in the very near future – are the best alternative for the Army as it reevaluates and reconsiders the future of its networks.

For additional information on HTS and MEO satellites and their uses for federal government and military operations, download the following resources:

• White Paper: Satellite Evolution Sparks a Service Revolution
• High Throughput Satellites for U.S. Government Applications
• White Paper On O3b “Fiber Like” Satellite Communications for U.S. Government Applications

The post New satellite solutions should be the Army’s answer to advanced adversaries appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

This year’s conference, in particular, was very eye opening, and brought with it some headline-grabbing comments regarding how the Army acquires new products, services and solutions, and the future direction of Army networks. Some of these changes could be very positive for the Army and America’s warfighters, while others could lead to problems down the line.

First, let’s discuss the changes in acquisition.

A new path forward for more rapid evaluation and acquisition
The entire U.S. military – including the Army – has historically struggled with acquisition. The Department of Defense (DoD) and branches of the military have found it difficult to evolve a system that acquired physical items – such as firearms, tanks, boats and planes – to one that acquires services and technologies.

When acquiring physical items – such as planes and tanks – the design, acquisition and implementation process can afford to move at a slower pace. Many of these platforms will be in circulation and service for decades. But services and technologies create challenges – especially when you consider the near-glacier speed of the federal acquisition process. This is something that I witnessed first hand as a Signal Officer in the Army.

Service providers struggle when doing business with the DoD and federal government because they need employees to meet the demands of government customers. Staff up too quickly and have the contract process move slowly, and they’re carrying employees and salaries for a long time waiting for the contract to be awarded. Wait until the award to staff up, and they’re left scrambling to hire the human resources necessary to meet contract demands.

Technology acquisition is similarly impacted by the slow acquisition process simply because technology moves too quickly. Often, by the time a new technology is evaluated, acquired, and implemented, it’s no longer a new technology and the latest and greatest has already entered the marketplace and become the new industry standard.

Satellite acquisition has faced similar challenges. We recently published a Q&A with Maj Gen Jay Santee, USAF (Ret.), who now serves as the Director for Resilient, Affordable Space at the MITRE Corporation, all about the challenges the DoD faces when acquiring satellite services, and the steps he thinks are necessary to overcome them. (You can find that article HERE.)

So, how is the Army planning on changing this? With a new pilot initiative that creates eight interdisciplinary teams responsible for identifying requirements and evaluating new solutions. The concept is expected to help warfighters better inform the materiel planning and acquisition process, while also expediting it to bring new solutions to bear on the battlefield in a more effective and efficient manner.

Although the program is just a pilot with little authority over acquisition practices early on, it is an innovative and interesting step that’s receiving initial praise from senior leaders across government. According to Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, “The Army’s decision to restructure its acquisition process and streamline its modernization program is an example of the kind of bold steps that will be necessary to fix a broken system.”

But that wasn’t the only change the Army committed to at this year’s event. The other has to do with their networks, and – if executed incorrectly – it could leave the Army less ready to face the threat of advanced adversaries in the future.

In our next article on the Government Satellite Report, I’ll take a closer look at the impending changes to army networks, and discuss why it’s essential that satellite plays a role in defense networks of the future.

To listen to an interesting podcast on the state of satellite acquisition in the DoD, featuring Jeff Rowlison, the Vice President of Government Affairs at SES Space and Defense, click HERE.

The post A new pilot program may present a challenge for Army acquisition appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The event, which featured the theme, “Network Readiness in a Complex World,” brought together senior ranking members of the Army and other branches of the military responsible for identifying and implementing military IT strategies and industry leaders that work directly with the military to deliver the technologies and services necessary to empower America’s warfighter. The panel discussions and side sessions at the event were a veritable “who’s who” of military IT leaders – both active duty and retired – including the CIO of the Army, LTG Robert S. Ferrell.

With a theme that encompassed network readiness, it’s no surprise that much of the discussion centered around cybersecurity and the new IT solutions and technologies that are helping to make IT services more agile, mobile and secure, while enabling advanced capabilities and services to the warfighter in the field.

Technologies of focus for all of the senior IT decision makers in attendance included those that could make their networks more secure against cyberattacks, cloud solutions that deliver more resiliency, flexibility and scalability to networks and even Unified Communications solutions that can better connect warfighters and civilian employees regardless of their location.

Another necessary technology when it comes to network readiness and ensuring that IT capabilities are available to the warfighter in any location and at any time is COMSATCOM. Although it wasn’t mentioned extensively during the day, SATCOM – particularly commercial SATCOM – is the bridge that extends Army and other DoD networks from CONUS and other locations to the very tip of the spear. It carries the data and information – whether that is video from UAVs, HD telemedicine or distance learning content, or any other type of IT network data – to the places where terrestrial networks don’t extend.

Moving at the speed of innovation
There was one conversation during the event where COMSATCOM featured prominently – the discussion about the acquisition of necessary IT products and services.

Acquisition was the topic of conversation for an entire panel discussion, entitled, “Readiness across the acquisition and industry communities,” and it featured:

• Retired Army LTG William Phillips (moderator)
• Army LTG Michael Williamson, the Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and Director of Acquisition Career Management
• Douglas Wiltsie, the Executive Director of the System of Systems Engineering and Integration Directorate at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
• Henry Muller, a Director at the Communications-Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center
• Retired COL Randy Bland, the Senior Director for Integrated Development at SES Space and Defense
• Jack White, the Director of the Infrastructure Development Directorate at the Development and Business Center at DISA.

One common theme during this panel discussion was the pace of technology and the speed of innovation. According to LTG Michael Williamson, “The pace of innovation in information technology is increasing. The pace of our combat operations and our adversary’s ability to influence our operating environment is increasing. Keeping up with this rapid evolution and exploiting it is creating challenges for the Army procurement system.”

The pace of innovation doesn’t just effect IT and consumer electronics, however. This need to keep up with innovation is one of many reasons why the DoD is looking to increase their use of COMSATCOM in the future. That sentiment was echoed by Doug Loverro, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy at the Department of Defense (DoD), during this year’s SATELLITE 2016 Conference, where he was quoted as saying, “In order to keep pace with the ever-expanding user need. And the users are incorporating new technologies – video, Internet, streaming services and more we haven’t thought of yet – as fast as the commercial world produces them on the ground. We can’t go ahead and maintain that pace of change in space. The only people that can maintain that rate of change in space is the commercial world.”

But there are challenges keeping the military from more rapid and widespread adoption of COMSATCOM.

Overcoming the acquisition conundrum
One of the major obstacles facing increased use of COMSATCOM across the military is the process and system for acquiring COMSATCOM services. As we’ve discussed in previous posts, the military has a history of purchasing COMSATCOM services on the “spot market,” when and where they’re needed. This makes it impossible to take advantage of efficiencies of scale and ultimately results in the military paying more for these services.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that is caused partly by the acquisition process, but predominantly by how we fund military programs. This was echoed by LTG Michael Williamson, who said, “We are very quick to attack the acquisition process and ask why we can’t acquire with speed. But you really have to take a whole government approach that includes how we fund for these programs.”

These acquisition and funding challenges are ultimately why programs like the Air Force’s Pathfinder program are so essential, they help identify ways around acquisition and funding issues that plague the COMSATCOM purchasing process. But they’re not the only problems with the acquisition process that came to light during the event – the protest process.

The COMSATCOM industry is very unique in that providers pay a significant amount of money to develop, launch and manage satellites on orbit. In the time that the satellite is in orbit and operational, these providers need to maximize the amount of transponder capacity they sell to recoup their investment. This means that the protest process can cause a unique amount of issues and trouble for COMSATCOM companies.

As Mr. Bland stated, “Protest is not good and we have to find a way to hold people accountable and require them to have skin in the game for protests…if it’s frivolous, it has to stop. They cost our industry a great deal of money. Let’s say we have five transponders reserved for [a military customer]…and someone protests frivolously, those five transponders cost us millions of dollars a month as they sit idle, or they are reclaimed and when they rerelease the solicitation, we don’t compete…”

The Army Networks Hot Topic event sponsored by the AUSA was an incredible window into the IT priorities and challenges facing the Army and wider military community today. COMSATCOM is essential for addressing one of the major challenges exposed at this event – the need to keep up with the speed and pace of innovation. However, to accomplish that, the military needs to reevaluate the way it acquires COMSATCOM, and eliminate some of the challenges facing the COMSATCOM industry.

The post Army looks to new technologies and better ways to acquire them appeared first on SES Space and Defense.