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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas Loverro, deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy, effectively put the onus for change on an industry that has long complained that the Pentagon relies too heavily on its own satellites and procures commercial bandwidth inefficiently.

“You guys have got to come up with a creative way to put these networks together, to put these systems together to meet our needs,” Loverro said at the MilSatCom USA conference sponsored by the SMi group of London. “Otherwise we will do what we normally do, which is the easiest thing for us to do, which is to follow part of our routine and go buy some satellites.”

Loverro cited what he characterized as a requirements-based proposal submitted jointly by the United States, France, Britain and Italy on an upcoming NATO satellite communications contract as an example of what’s possible via collaboration. NATO is giving that proposal serious consideration, Loverro said.

He cautioned that NATO, which does not own satellites, has its own acquisition rules and that its procurement might not be directly analogous to a U.S. program. “There are many ways to build this arrangement, but the creativity has got to be on how the networks work together.”

Industry officials countered, however, that there are significant government barriers to innovative commercial satellite solutions for the government. Legal reviews within the Pentagon, policy uncertainty and outdated laws continue to pose problems.  Loverro acknowledged these concerns and urged both patience and perseverance on industry’s part.

Another longstanding issue raised by the audience is the lack of a single entity in charge of the U.S. military satellite communications enterprise. Satellites, terminals and commercial bandwidth are all procured by different agencies under programs that often lack the coordination necessary to deliver the best and most cost effective overall solution.

Loverro readily conceded this point. “We need to charge some agency, some entity with providing satcom to the warfighter” without concern for whether the bandwidth is coming from a military-owned, commercial or even allied satellite,” he said.

The Pentagon is preparing to begin a long-awaited an analysis of alternatives for its future wideband communications capability, now served by the military-owned Wideband Global Satcom constellation and a mix of commercial satellite operators. Although an estimated 60 percent of today’s U.S. military traffic is carried via commercial satellites, these operators want to be more fully integrated into the architecture, as opposed to an adjunct to the Pentagon’s own capacity.

For some military users, such as U.S. special operations forces, however, the qualities of commercial capacity make it the choice of first resort.

U.S. Army Col. John McLaughlin, C4 operations chief at U.S. Special Operations Command, said special operations forces rely on commercial over government capacity by a margin of 11 to 1. Commercial services tend to be more flexible, agile and responsive than comparable services from military satellites like WGS, he said.

McLaughlin also complained about the lack of terminals for the U.S. Navy’s Mobile User Objective System, whose fifth and final satellite launched in June. The Defense Department needs to “do a better job of getting the pieces of the program together so they’ll be synchronized better,” he said.

Winston Beauchamp, deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for space and director of the Principal DoD Space Advisor Staff, said the Pentagon is looking to change its approach to procuring satellite communications capabilities, government and commercial, as it seeks to become more resilient against various space threats that have emerged in recent years. Commercial capabilities and improved resiliency will be key factors in the upcoming analysis of alternatives, he said.

“We know we’re not going to have a one-size-fits-all solution,” Beachamp said. “…If you come to me with a plan that says ‘I can get you the best possible deal as long as you give all the work to me,’ that’s probably not going to fly. If we’re looking for resilience, I’d much rather 10 percent of 100 satellites than 100 percent of 10 satellites.”

The post DoD Official Challenges Satcom Providers to Get Creative appeared first on SES Space and Defense.