Chairman Rogers began his remarks by describing his views on the many challenges currently facing the Department of Defense (DoD) in space – a very common refrain that has been discussed at almost every space and satellite event in the past few years. Namely, space is no longer a benign and uncontested environment for the military and its assets. An increase in congestion and the emergence of sophisticated jamming and kinetic attack capabilities among our adversaries is forcing the US military to put more consideration and effort into protecting its spacecraft and the capabilities they deliver.

With this dramatic sea change in the space domain, and the emergence of space as a recognized warfighting domain, Chairman Rogers focused on what he views are challenges and concerns facing the United States national security space enterprise.

What we’re doing wrong in space
Chairman Rogers was quick to point out just how convoluted the national security space enterprise is within the whole of US Government. He posited that it’s difficult to determine who, exactly, is in charge, and responsible for space decisions within the military – breeding confusion and a lack of accountability.

This confusion was illustrated well by the Congressman when he said, “[The] space organization and decision making is terribly fragmented. For instance, when we asked the [DoD] for an organizational chart – a simple organizational chart so we could understand who was involved with making decisions in the national security space enterprise…the answer was ‘we don’t have one…but here’s a list of the 60 offices that are involved in this process.’”

With 60 disparate offices and organizations involved in making space decisions, it’s easy to see why Chairman Rogers is concerned about just how focused and organized the U.S. military is when it comes to space. As the Congressman said, “Everyone’s in charge. And that means no one’s in charge.”

But this often confusing organization construct was just one of multiple challenges that Chairman Rogers discussed. There was also the issue of priorities and funding. According to Chairman Rogers, “Space is not being given the priority it should be given. The Air Force has 90 percent of the budget for military space, but the Air Force has 12 core functions that it has to budget for – space is just one of them. And who here thinks National Security of space is the number one priority?”

Ultimately, the Congressman discussed how the military – and the government as a whole – illustrates what is most important by how it spends its money and distributes its budgets, and space simply isn’t seeing the investment that other domains are receiving. Looking back at budgets over the past few years – following sequestration – the Congressman noted that, “Space never recovers. Over a ten year period, Air Force national security space investments are down 23 percent, while Air Force investments are up 30 percent.”

The lack of investment isn’t just illustrated in budget dollars. A lack of focus and prioritization on space has also impacted the military’s space workforce. According to Chairman Rogers, “We are not prioritizing and developing men and women in the national security space community…How can we have the world’s best national security space program if we don’t grow and retain the best men and women…and give them the budget and authority they need?”

With the challenges and problems on the table, the Congressman then shifted to discuss what he feels could be the solution.

A new “space force?”
If the Congressman’s vision becomes a reality, the DoD could soon be comprised of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard…and Space Force. That’s right, in the Congressman’s vision for the DoD, the space domain is spun out from the Air Force and given its own organization within the DoD so that space can get the focus it needs and deserves.

As Chairman Rogers detailed, “My vision for the future is a separate space force within the Department of Defense, just like the Air Force – which had to be separated from the Army in order to be prioritized and become a world class military service. Simply put, space must be a priority. And it can’t be one if we get up each morning – out of bed – thinking about fighters and bombers…”

By creating a separate space force within the DoD, the Congressman believes that they will, “reduce bureaucracy, clarify roles and responsibilities, and have a person leading [the] effort that wakes up every day and thinks about how we can have the best military space program in the world and actually has the authority to make it happen and be accountable for it.”

This isn’t a change that can be made quickly and without significant consideration and planning. This is a change that will need to be agreed upon, studied and implemented carefully and in a disciplined, deliberate way. If the DoD does decide to create a separate space force, it’s not going to happen in the immediate future, which means that other changes are going to have to be proposed and implemented to make space a priority until then.

This is why Chairman Rogers proposed that, “[space] funding needs to be protected from the services so that the space accounts are not raided by air or other service missions.” He also discussed an increased focus on developing talented space personnel when he said, “We need a clearly identified cadre of space professionals that are trained, promoted and sustained…”

Although we’ve often heard space decision makers and leaders across the military discussing a need to redefine and change how the military acquires, manages and utilizes satellite capabilities and space assets, this is one of the most aggressive and significant changes that we’ve heard proposed before. Despite the scope of the proposed changes to the nation’s national security space enterprise, the Congressman appears impassioned that this aggressive change is both important and necessary. As he, himself, said:

“It’s very hard for the government bureaucracy to fix itself, but that’s exactly why congressional oversight exists. It’s the job of the Armed Services Committee to recognize when the bureaucracy is broken and to see that it’s fixed. It’s going to be a collaborative process, but we’re going to change the system before it’s too late. We need to align accountability with authority, reduce bureaucracy and de-conflict with other missions. We also need to prioritize space investments and the people charged with the warfighting domain in space.”

To learn about the role that the commercial satellite industry can play in reshaping and reprioritizing the space domain, click on the following resources:

• Rogers calls for separate “Space Corps” within the Air Force (Space News)
• For Rep. Rogers, fighting through a war in space starts with fixing acquisition (Space News)
• 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 Chairman Rogers calls for shake up of national security space community appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The members of this star-studded panel included:

• Warren Ferster: Editor-in-Chief of Space News (moderator)
• Winston Beauchamp: Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space, and the Director, Principal DoD Space Advisor Staff
• Peter F. Hoene: President & CEO, SES Space and Defense
• Rick Lober: VP and GM of the Defense & Intelligence Systems Division at Hughes Network Systems
• Kay Sears: President, Intelsat General
• Leonor Tomero: Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Armed Services
• Joe Vanderpoorten: Space & Missile Systems Center Pathfinder Program Office

Together, these satellite experts explored the difficult situation that the Air Force and the rest of the United States military is facing; namely, the rapidly approaching end of the Wideband Global SATCOM system (WGS) fleet program.

The WGS satellite constellation is comprised of ten disparate spacecraft that were scheduled for launch over the course of a decade. The final WGS satellite – WGS-10 – is slated to launch in FY18. The WGS system is a replacement for the aging Defense Satellite Communications System (DCSC), which had limited capacity compared to WGS and commercial satellites.

At a time of budget uncertainty and cost-cutting within the federal government, the exorbitant price tag on each of the WGS satellites seems unsustainable in both the near and distant future. This has the military looking at less expensive alternatives for satellite communications requirements following the launch of WGS-10. One of the alternatives being discussed across the space segment is the deliberate integration of commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) services into the National Security Space architecture.

The reasons to look to COMSATCOM as a key national security enabler were presented by Leonor Tomero, who identified, “new threats, fiscal constraints, [and a] need for resilience,” as drivers for this renewed interest in COMSATCOM services. Ultimately, Ms. Tomero noted that, “Relying more on commercial capability…may be more advantageous for the tax payer…“

Can COMSATCOM answer the call for satellite bandwidth following WGS-10? According to Pete Hoene of SES Space and Defense, “I think the answer to that is, “Yes,” and we are encouraged by…how the industry brings innovative solutions to the table.”

Despite assurances from the COMSTCOM industry that they can handle the bandwidth demands from the military, there are some concerns from the government about using COMSATCOM in this capacity. Many of these concerns circle around the Extremely High Frequency (EHF) wavelength, which has been utilized exclusively in the government satellites due to a lack of business cases to embrace it within the COMSATCOM industry.

This sentiment was echoed by Winston Beauchamp when he stated that the Department of Defense, “Historically [has] not seen a business case for commercial bandwidth in the EHF band.” Despite the DoD being, “committed to close partnerships and collaborations in the industry as we plan our next generation satellite architecture,” Mr. Beauchamp reiterated that, “While DoD is looking for services available commercially, that band is not commercially available.”

Discussion around the EHF and security of satellite communications is at a fever pitch thanks in large part to something that we heard extensively at this year’s SATCON Conference in New York, NY – space is an increasingly contested environment. Our adversaries know the military’s reliance on SATCOM for information sharing, intelligence gathering and remotely piloted aircraft operations, and have made significant strides towards intercepting, jamming, disabling and destruction of satellites and satellite communications.

The lack of EHF capacity on existing COMSATCOM spacecraft doesn’t mean that industry can’t support the military when it comes to providing secure communications.

First, there’s the opportunity to launch EHF payloads as hosted payloads aboard COMSATCOM satellites. In this situation, the military would place their mission-critical EHF payloads on commercial satellites that are slated to be launched in space. The COMSATCOM provider and military would then share the cost of launch and satellite operation, effectively slashing the total cost of launching the payload.

Mr. Beauchamp validated the potential to launch EHF payloads and systems as hosted payloads when he said, “Certainly for protected tactical systems you would want to see options that include hosted payloads.”

But launching EHF systems as hosted payloads is just one way that COMSATCOM services can help protect military satellites and communications. As Mr. Beauchamp explained, “I wouldn’t say that just because COMSATCOM systems don’t have the protections that MILSATCOM has that they are in any way less contributing to a resiliency. In fact, the diversity of these systems in itself contribute to resiliency.”

This increase in resiliency is an end result of deception and distribution. Distributing military communications through COMSATCOM satellites makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint exactly which satellite is carrying mission-critical communications for the U.S. military, making it harder for our adversaries to target a particular spacecraft. Mr. Beauchamp illustrated this point when he explained how COMSATCOM, “provide[s a] very complex environment to adversaries [and]… make[s] it as difficult as possible for them to really understand what it would take to hold our capabilities at risk.”

But deception is just one resiliency benefit of COMSATCOM. The distribution of military communications across multiple satellites – including COMSATCOM satellites – ensures that there is no one single point of failure, and that the compromise of one satellite doesn’t impact communications as a whole.

Despite the promise of secure military communications across COMSATCOM, and the ability to drastically reduce the cost of satellite bandwidth and capabilities across the military, there are still questions about how best to acquire and pay for satellite services. To gauge the effectiveness of different COMSATCOM services and their cost benefits, the Air Force launched a series of programs called, “Pathfinders.” These Pathfinder programs utilize acquisition dollars to purchase transponders that are then turned over to COMSATCOM providers to operate and service for a multiyear period.

When discussing the first Pathfinder program, panelist Peter Hoene of SES Space and Defense said, “[Pathfinder One] is a really key initiative and…broke a lot new ground. The idea of the government buying…a transponder and allowing the COMSATCOM owner/operator to operate that for their needs is really a breakthrough.”

The benefits of the Pathfinder program were extolled by Joe Vanderpoorten of the Air Force Space & Missile Systems Center, who claimed that the Pathfinder One program has been successful in delivering bandwidth to the customer, while also being, “successful economically.”

With the WGS program coming to a quick and abrupt end, the DoD and Congress need to identify how they’re going to bring new satellite capabilities on line following the launch of WGS-10. The panel discussion showed that COMSATCOM can provide the new technologies, increased flexibility and cost savings that are essential to the military today. By continuing to aggregate COMSATCOM purchasing under the authority of a single entity, finding new and innovative ways to purchase COMSATCOM services and working to integrate COMSATCOM services into a single network with military satellite capabilities, the DoD can be sure that they have a secure, resilient satellite network capable of delivering information when and where needed, in all situations and theaters.

Additional Resources:

• Sign up for upcoming WSBR events here
• Overview: SES Space and Defense Support for Pathfinder I
• U.S. Air Force Signs trailblazing Lease for SES Satellite Capacity – Space News

The post Government Space Leaders Look To Commercial Satellites for More Resilient Communications appeared first on SES Space and Defense.