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.