But successes are usually accompanied by setbacks and challenges. Even after witnessing these incredible use-case wins for COMSATCOM integration and adoption, the federal government has still been slow and hesitant to fully implement and deploy these satellite technologies that can support the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) mission of providing its military with a resilient space architecture.

Though officials frequently point to this space architecture as a top priority for the department, the government acquisition process of commercial space assets – which could truly propel the U.S. ahead of its foreign adversaries and near-peer competitors – was still sluggish and arduous in 2022.

To learn more about the trends, progress, and challenges the commercial satellite industry faced within the federal acquisition space in 2022, and to get an outlook on how COMSATCOM can support the federal government and the DoD’s mission requirements in 2023, the Government Satellite Report was able to catch up with SES Space & Defense’s Senior Vice President of Strategic Development, Jay Icard.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): Over the past year, what overarching trends is the commercial satellite industry seeing and experiencing as it pertains to government acquisition? What successes has the industry experienced? What new challenges have come up?

Jay Icard: We’ve seen the government shift away from the lowest price technically acceptable procurements to using best value, which is good! The number of networks has remained flat, meaning the commercial industry repeatedly competes for the same contracts.

Having said that, the U. S. Space Force awarded some significant COMSATCOM contracts last year, such as the CSSC II contract for the U.S. Navy, which is over $900M ceiling – not a small effort. They also released some new solicitations, such as the Global X-band Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), which should prove to be an enabling contract for MILSATCOM-COMSATCOM integration in the near future.

One concerning challenge that has been popping up these last few years pertains to the current talent pool. If you look at the needs for talent on the government acquisition side, they need personnel to develop the requirements with their customers. They need personnel to evaluate the proposals, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find experienced personnel that wants to work on COMSATCOM acquisitions.

“Along with assuming full acquisition and procurement authorities for COMSATCOM, Space Command should work with Space Force to create Program Objective Memorandum (POM) budgets for select procurements of COMSATCOM.” – Jay Icard

It’s not common for people to go to college and major in COMSATCOM engineering. The government and industry compete from the same resource talent pool. Our industry is not something you learn in a couple of months.

The 2016 “Analysis of Alternatives” study, mandated by Congress, required the Department to look at how military and commercial systems could collectively provide a resilient enterprise architecture. The study found that leveraging both military and commercial systems into an integrated hybrid architecture would save taxpayer dollars. That said, we need government professionals that understand the SATCOM acquisition business.

U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command are working to integrate COMSATCOM, and they choose from that same talent pool, because there’s still a finite number of professionals with the required skillsets. It’s an industry-wide dilemma. I’ve had a number of discussions with Space Force, Space Command, and industry leaders about this topic.

GSR: What are the possible solutions for those skill gaps in the workforce?

Jay Icard: We’ve spoken with Space Force about immersion. For example, in the past, there have been immersion programs where civilian or military personnel would spend time at a vendor’s facility within an operations or engineering team to learn about how the vendor works and operates.

I participate in the U.S. Space Command’s Commercial Integration Cell (CIC), a group of ten industry partners that work with the command to improve the operational effectiveness of space operations. Within the CIC, we have explored several ideas about bridging that skills gap. Immersion of personnel is one of the ideas that are out there. We know it is an effective method, but it requires a deliberate plan that makes sense for all parties to invest the resources to make it successful.

GSR: Has the government and military made any headway with tearing down the bureaucratic challenges that hinder commercial satellite acquisitions? Has there been any progress or new challenges that have come up? How can government and industry work together to make the process faster while meeting military requirements?

Jay Icard: I believe the government is working on it. They have stabilized their organization and where the COMSATCOM purchasing organization is going to sit within Space Systems Command.

Along with assuming full acquisition and procurement authorities for COMSATCOM, Space Command should work with Space Force to create Program Objective Memorandum (POM) budgets for select procurements of COMSATCOM. For example, the government should consider the POM budget for ground infrastructure and network configuration projects to use existing commercial space assets and place into service MILSATCOM-COMSATCOM roaming configurations discussed in the Space Force Vision for SATCOM. But in general, Space Command and Space Force should see where the POM process can be used to ensure a stable and methodical approach to accelerating the availability of COMSATCOM solutions for military requirements.

“First, we must address where we anticipate conflict and where there may be surge needs. That’s first and foremost.” – Jay Icard

We’re not talking about billions and billions of dollars. Small investments could create a lot of capability with COMSATCOM integration in a short amount of time. But first, the organization needs to be set, and the roles and responsibilities tightened up, and I think they have that now.

GSR: Has establishing the U.S. Space Force and having one centralized service for space simplified the commercial satellite acquisition process?

Jay Icard: I believe it will, and I think the measures of success are straightforward. When presented with a mission need from a service or COCOM:  1) Have we reduced the time to acquire a COMSATCOM service? 2) Have we reduced the time to activate a COMSATCOM service? Those are the fundamental measures of success.

So if I have a need for a certain amount of throughput or network availability in a specific area – How long did it take me to acquire? How long did it take you to activate? That’s where the rubber meets the road.

GSR: What are the top SATCOM needs and requirements that the military and government are looking to fulfill in 2023?

Jay Icard: First, we must address where we anticipate conflict and where there may be surge needs. That’s first and foremost. Are we ready to surge? Do we have the capacity in place to fulfill a surge requirement? In any other networking discipline, it’s busy hour traffic management. Are we ready for the busy hour traffic?

Second, do we have plans to fulfill the future capacity needs? As our capacity consumption grows over the next five years, do we have enough MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM to fulfill that need? Where are the gaps? What are the plans to fill those gaps?

And it could be that we have the space assets to fill the gaps. But do we have the ground assets configured to utilize the space assets that are available to us? Do we have the contracting mechanisms to access the space and ground assets in a timely manner?

“Are we using our assets and skills and implementing those capabilities now and in a short timeline with small amounts of money? Or are we studying to do it five years from now?” – Jay Icard

GSR: On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In the 2023 NDAA, there is a portion that directs the DoD to lay out a strategy and requirements for the protection of DoD satellites. How can the satellite industry assist in realizing these strategies and requirements for a more resilient and defendable national security space architecture, as the law states?

Jay Icard: Accelerate the employment of COMSATCOM integration into military missions, making the enemy’s targeting calculus more complicated. It’s a low-cost and near-term solution to protect MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM assets.

Suppose an enemy focuses their resources into a space asset and successfully disables it. In that case, they will only affect a small percent of the traffic if effective COMSATCOM integration has been employed. To me, that’s been the priority for years now, and that’s the purpose of COMSATCOM integration.

I think the other “tests” we ask in an effort to accelerate COMSATCOM integration include: Are we utilizing the contracts that we have? Are we using our assets and skills and implementing those capabilities now and in a short timeline with small amounts of money? Or are we studying to do it five years from now? Are we studying a problem that we could solve with small and timely investment that could have real mission effects in the near term?  I think that is a test that all of us in the industry and in the policymaking side need to ask ourselves.

To learn about how SES Space & Defense’s new O3b mPOWER constellation can support missions across the federal government and military, click HERE.

The post SESSD Senior Vice President on the state of COMSATCOM in 2022 and what’s in store for 2023 appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

This week, we conclude our conversation with Jon, as he examines whether or not the military will shift away from the military’s own WGS satellites and commercially-operated GEO satellite services in favor of NGSO solutions, as well as give an update on the highly anticipated, official DoD report on the use of NGSO satellites.

Here is what he had to say:

GSR: Congress appears to be pretty focused on NGSO satellite right now, but do you anticipate the military moving away from WGS and commercial GEO solutions in the immediate future? Is there a need for GEO satellite in a world with LEO and MEO satellites?

Jon Bennett: I think there is a need for GEO, and that goes back to the “Fighting SATCOM” effort. COMSATCOM integration – which is an appropriate mix of military satellite communications and commercial satellite communications capabilities – is something that the U.S. Space Force has talked about and worked hard to implement. Fully recognizing and achieving that goal will take time, but there is hope that the Department will get there eventually. That said, I believe there is still a need for GEO birds and I don’t think we’ll ever get away from WGS.

For example, if a special operations team needs MILSAT to communicate at the tactical edge, they have direct access to WGS capabilities as those operations are heavily prioritized. Whereas with COMSATCOM, you’ll need to have an identified demand signal, a contract vehicle in place, and the ability to onboard that capability with the necessary ground segment and networking infrastructure. Integrating commercial capabilities into the DoD enterprise architecture would give the warfighters the ability to leverage next generation and forward leaning innovative assets across the board.

If you just look at WGS, Father Time is clearly coming into the picture and limiting that constellation’s shelf life. Bottom line, those satellites are getting old. So, ask yourself, “What’s the cost associated with replacing a WGS satellite?” We, the commercial sector, already have assets that are paid for, flying, and delivering to U.S. government agencies right now. The capacity is available. So, if the military constellation of WGS satellites is starting to wane and its shelf life is diminishing, the DoD needs to hop over to commercial. That’s going to be imperative when it pertains to military dollars associated with the government’s demanding requirements.

Congress’ directive is really an assessment of the vulnerabilities and the overall resiliency of space access to national security missions across the board.” -Jon Bennett

Congress cares and wants to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. And it is an extremely smart investment for them to leverage commercial capabilities, especially when you have commercial solutions that are close to providing the level of security features that you see in WGS satellites.

That, to me, is why it would behoove the military to leverage their WGS assets, but also integrate commercial capabilities into their enterprise architecture. The Hill remains well aware of the opportunities presented by integrated SATCOM capabilities at GEO, MEO, and LEO for delivering robust, flexible, and manageable enterprise solutions for the DoD.

GSR: We know that the NDAA instructed the DoD to author a report about its use of NGSO satellite. What is the current status of that? Has it been submitted?

Jon Bennett: Though we haven’t seen the report yet, the DoD has been hard at work on that effort. Congress is continuing to hold the department’s feet to the fire with that NDAA language.

Congress’ directive is really an assessment of the vulnerabilities and the overall resiliency of space access to national security missions across the board. If you look at not just last year’s NDAA, but this year’s also, there are additional requirements being levied by members of the Armed Services Committee.

They are requiring knowing how the acquisition process has been impacted. They also want to know what the contracts with commercial providers look like. And the Hill wants to understand, at the current state of play, if the use of commercial capabilities can accommodate unforeseen demand signals.

For example, if the INDOPACOM were to pop, and there is a conflict between China and Taiwan, does the DoD have enough capability from a MILSATCOM or a COMSATCOM perspective to address that demand signal? To us, the answer is no. We are not seeing the Department scheme for potential surge requirements. So, how do you improve the plan for commercial satellite communications across the military departments? They must plan accordingly, right? The Department needs to address and build out the requirement for NGSO satellite integration. Congress must be willing to support a long-term sustainable budget that enables the Department to leverage the necessary capabilities in defense of our national and economic security interests. The NDAA is getting after this issue but we are not where we need to be, yet.

Modernizing DoD’s decision-making processes for combat operations is paramount, and the Hill understands that leveraging commercial and its next generation end-to-end SATCOM solutions will only enhance ABMS.” -Jon Bennett

The report that was put in the FY22 NDAA is really holding the department accountable on multiple fronts. Congress is hungry to understand how the department is going to leverage COMSATCOM capabilities. This year, next year, and certainly for the long-term future. The Hill is well aware of the increasing importance of delivering resilient global SATCOM for the joint warfighter. Congress wants to see a long-term investment strategy on integrating commercial NGSO satellite capabilities in support of a secure, resilient and disaggregated multi-band/multi-orbit enterprise architecture.

GSR: Based on what you heard at these demonstrations for lawmakers, and what we’re hearing from the military, how far away are we from NGSO satellite seeing wide use across the DoD? What would need to happen for that to become a reality?

Jon Bennett: The reality is that the military has been using non-GEO satellites in their services since 2016. When SES launched their O3b MEO capabilities, LEO players hadn’t even bent metal. And in 2016, the COCOMs saw the benefits of the original NGSO COMSATCOM capability in MEO. O3b offered very high-throughput, low latency capabilities that really enabled the Pentagon decision makers the ability to act on intelligence in real-time. We’ve been doing that since 2016, so it’s been a reality for six years already.

Based on the demonstrations with lawmakers and what we heard from them several weeks back, they are extremely interested in the security features. The threat landscape is evolving for the worse. We’re seeing more and more threats posed to our national security interests, without question. So, understandably, you have Members of Congress and their staff wanting to understand how these SATCOM assets are built to an inherently resilient, robust, and secure capability set that mitigates the threats posed.

We walked them through that and other areas of interest. We talked about the advanced battle management system (ABMS), and how it allows commanders and warfighters to share more and better information faster. Modernizing DoD’s decision-making processes for combat operations is paramount, and the Hill understands that leveraging commercial and its next generation end-to-end SATCOM solutions will only enhance ABMS.

Congress wants to see the Department work towards identifying the necessary tools and acquisition models to integrate COMSATCOM systems more effectively and efficiently into architecture.” -Jon Bennett

So, how is SATCOM an enabler to ABMS? The members of Congress were certainly interested in that question. As we provide Capitol Hill with further information as to the roles and responsibilities that SATCOM providers have on the Department’s Enterprise Network Architecture, Congress is going to fully appreciate that SATCOM is the backbone to any theater operation in support of the warfighters.

GSR: Should funding be made available, and should the DoD decide to invest that funding in commercial NGSO satellite services, what would be needed from a hardware standpoint? How long would it take to get these services rolled out to the warfighter in a meaningful way?

Jon Bennett: On the heels of this NDAA, the Hill continues to be supportive of integrating COMSATCOM capabilities into the national security space communications architecture. Congress wants to see the Department work towards identifying the necessary tools and acquisition models to integrate COMSATCOM systems more effectively and efficiently into architecture.

When it comes to the hardware, one of the things that we were able to demonstrate during our Congressional visit a few weeks back, was showcasing the Army’s bread and butter terminal, the Phoenix E-Model terminal. The Army assessed the potential Phoenix E-Model MEO capability during the Project Convergence 21 network modernization exercise last fall. Since Project Convergence, the Army has been able to “MEO-ize” their Phoenix terminal. We call it MEO-ization. Think about upgrading and modernizing legacy equipment and what that means from a dollar standpoint.

When military services couldn’t leverage their current terminals, they’d have to buy new terminals. And the costs associated with those terminals are astronomical.

We were able to work with the Army and help them convert their terminals so they could talk to our MEO satellites. Think about that. We were able to reconfigure an older and heavily leveraged piece of equipment so that it could now talk to multiple assets in multiple orbits at multiple frequencies. The ability to leverage those capabilities at the tactical edge into the fight is incredible. Think about the dollars saved! That’s awesome.

Commercial strongly encourages the Department to clearly articulate and prioritize these critical commercial satellite communication integration efforts in the next budget request.” -Jon Bennett

When it comes to rolling these services out to the warfighters, there was a concern back in 2016 when CENTCOM didn’t want to pay for the service. But that was okay because the commercial industry can lease these terminals to them. They don’t have to buy them. It just becomes a fully end-to-end managed service, which enables capabilities to be rolled out to the warfighter in a meaningful way. We can do that easily at a high level of efficiency. It’s something that we’ve done before. It’s something that we continue to do.

As we work with the different military services, and their respective hardware requirements, it’s only going to get better, especially when O3b mPOWER comes on board. We are launching later this year and will be operational next year. And the military services fully understand that O3b mPOWER is a game-changing capability. They want to get their hands on it.

I will end with this though…as the Department works to implement a new strategy for comprehensive satellite communications capabilities, to what extent will the Department leverage multi-orbit capabilities and commercial partnerships to achieve cost efficiency and enhance resiliency?

Commercial strongly encourages the Department to clearly articulate and prioritize these critical commercial satellite communication integration efforts in the next budget request. I believe, as does Congress, the Department’s approach to resiliency, flexibility, and security, must include plans to secure multi-orbit and multi-band capabilities. But once again, the support to investment in commercial needs to be there.

To read part one of our conversation with Jon Bennett, click HERE.

The post Will the U.S. military shift away from WGS satellite in favor of NGSO solutions? 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.

Last December, President Biden signed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22), but unlike previous years, FY22’s NDAA included some rather unique and noteworthy amendments and requests. For the first time in years, Congress has interestingly added a call in FY22’s NDAA which requires the DoD to report on its utilization of COMSATCOM services from non-geostationary orbits (NGSO) for delivering connectivity to the warfighter.

You may be asking, why are NGSO COMSATCOM initiatives all of a sudden such an important topic for Congress? Why does Congress care about the SATCOM connectivity for warfighters? And what COMSATCOM services does the military currently use, and what capabilities do they enable for the warfighter?

To answer these questions – and much, much more – the Government Satellite Report Podcast hosted SES Space and Defense’s Vice President of Government Affairs, Marketing and Corporate Communications – Jon Bennett.

During the discussion, Government Satellite Report Executive Editor, Ryan Schradin, asked Jon about the current state of military connectivity, what connectivity data Congress is looking to gather, as well as what would the process would look like for Congress to provide the necessary funds to embrace NGSO COMSATCOM.

To listen to the podcast, click the PLAY button below:

The post GSR Podcast: Why is NGSO COMSATCOM in This Year’s NDAA? appeared first on SES Space and Defense.