What was perhaps one of the most exciting takeaways from the numerous side sessions, panel discussions, and keynote addresses that we were able to attend was an incredibly overt change in the role and perception of commercial satellite across the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

For years, military leaders debated the benefits of integrating commercial satellite capabilities into the military’s larger satellite and network architecture. Those debates eventually gave way to a broad understanding across the DoD that an integrated COMSATCOM and MILSATCOM architecture would deliver increased resiliency and assurance to military communications networks at a time when near-peer adversaries were increasingly building and demonstrating the capability to deny our nation’s tactical advantage in space.

“…commercial technologies are outpacing purpose-built defense systems in terms of warfighter-specific performance, even in areas like anti-jam capabilities and cyber defense capabilities…” – Craig Miller

But this year’s SATELLITE 2023 Conference took that a step further, with multiple military and industry satellite experts and decision-makers acknowledging that the integration of commercial and military satellite capabilities is not just beneficial – but essential – for the DoD to meet the connectivity and communications requirements of the modern warfighter.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in a panel discussion entitled, “Transforming Battlespace Communications,” which involved multiple notable government and satellite industry leaders, including:

• Craig Miller, President, Government Systems at Viasat (Moderator)
• Mike Dean, DoD SATCOM Chief at the U.S. Department of Defense
• Rich Pang, Vice President of Corporate Development at Telesat Government Solutions
• David Robinson, Director of Government Programs at Iridium
• Dr. Frank Turner, Technical Director at the Space Development Agency (SDA)

During this panel discussion, the participants weighed in on how the satellite requirements have evolved and changed in today’s modern military, and how this evolution has impacted the role of COMSATCOM in the DoD. The panelists also shared their opinions on the things that need to happen before COMSATCOM can truly become an integrated part of the military’s satellite and network architecture.

Why COMSATCOM is mission critical
A decade ago, the debate within the military satellite community was whether commercial capabilities could be trusted and relied upon to carry military communications – and if the military should be purchasing, launching, and operating their own purpose-built satellites or leasing commercial capacity. But things have changed tremendously in the course of that decade.

“…if you’ve got that decision superiority, regardless of how you build it…that gives the United States significant overmatch over its adversaries. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.” – Dr. Frank Turner

The evolution of the Internet of Things (IoT), the shift towards a more connected and networked warfighter, and the need to generate, analyze, and gain actionable insights from data have revolutionized how the DoD conducts operations and what warfighters carry with them in theater. Col. Joseph “Ward” Roberts (Ret.), the Assistant Program Executive Officer, PEO C3T for the U.S. Army illustrated this point clearly and succinctly during a panel discussion earlier in the conference when he said, “We are now getting to the point where every soldier on the battlefield is networked. He has [the] capability to both generate and consume data.”

That ability to generate and consume data has become increasingly important for the DoD, which is looking to leverage data from every conceivable source in theater – warfighters, unmanned vehicles, sensors, and other devices platforms – to gain better situational awareness and a tactical, information advantage over our adversaries.

“There is never enough intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). There’s never enough. As the commander of INDOPACOM said, he wants to be able to blind the enemy, see them, and kill them. And in order to do that, you need all of the data that you possibly can and turn it into excellent information to yield decisions, period,” Dr. Turner explained. “And if you’ve got that decision superiority, regardless of how you build it…that gives the United States significant overmatch over its adversaries. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.”

Dr. Turner’s quote illustrates just how important it is for today’s military to have real-time access to accurate, quality data that can be used to inform decision-making. And that free flow of data both within and outside of the battlefield is only really possible if commercial capabilities are being leveraged in tandem with military space capabilities – a fact that led Dr. Turner to conclude that, “None of this works if you don’t completely blend commercial [capabilities] and…whatever the government is buying.”

But it’s not just about getting access to additional bandwidth and capacity to meet the military’s increasing communications needs and requirements in theater. There is another reason why COMSATCOM is becoming essential to military operations – innovation.

“We are now getting to the point where every soldier on the battlefield is networked. He has [the] capability to both generate and consume data.” – Col. Joseph “Ward” Roberts (Ret.)

“I think the real benefit, at least as I look across the enterprise, that I can get with commercial services is they’re innovating on such a faster cycle than what we can do internally,” Dean explained. “It’s a killer app. it’s such an advantage to be able to rapidly introduce new capabilities.”

But the kind of innovation that the government and military are seeing from the commercial satellite industry has changed, as well, over the past decade.

The military was originally excited about the proliferation of satellites in non-Geostationary orbits (NGSO) and the decrease in latency that comes with it. The military was also excited about the addition of high throughput satellites (HTS) to both GEO and NGSO constellations. But today, they’re seeing innovations that can help with security, assuredness, and resiliency.

“…commercial technologies are outpacing purpose-built defense systems in terms of warfighter-specific performance, even in areas like anti-jam capabilities and cyber defense capabilities,” explained Miller. “…commercial capability should be a part of any warfighting enterprise going forward.”

And, according to the panelists, there is a very good reason for that.

What is good for you is good for me
The proliferation of satellites in new orbits closer to Earth made sense for commercial satellite operators and service providers because it enabled them to deliver fiber-like connectivity from space to their government, commercial, and consumer customers. A similar thing could be said about the integration of HTS into existing constellations – which gave operators higher throughputs and more capacity that they could sell to customers onboard each spacecraft.

“I think the real benefit…that I can get with commercial services is they’re innovating on such a faster cycle than what we can do internally. It’s a killer app. it’s such an advantage to be able to rapidly introduce new capabilities.” – Mike Dean

However, when it came to the integration of features that the military would want – features designed to increase security and assuredness – industry partners simply didn’t have a lot of motivation to make the investment. But that, too, has changed.

As our military’s focus has shifted to a new generation of near-peer adversaries that are incredibly capable, the importance of protecting space assets has increased. The new pacing threats that face our military have demonstrated the capability to deny or degrade satellite networks and communications. And these capabilities – including kinetic attacks and jamming capabilities – are a threat to both military and commercial satellites.

“I think that some of the threats that may be posed will be equally felt on both the DoD side and the commercial side [and will be] indiscriminating between commercial birds and military birds,” Robinson said. “I think – fortunately, or unfortunately – there’s actually a pretty significant compliment of things that you need to worry about on both the commercial side and the DoD side – in the space segment, at least.”

That extends beyond the space domain to the cyber domain, as well, where cyber threats have emerged that could impact both commercial and military satellites and their end-users. Luckily, the industry is taking steps to address these, as well. As Pang explained, “…from a network perspective, I think our commercial customers demand cybersecurity as much as our government customers…”

The post Conversations at SATELLITE 2023 Show MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM Converging appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

During our discussion, we asked Ram about the challenges that an austere space domain creates for the DoD, the technological challenges that the military faces when trying to integrate satellite networks with coalition and industry partners, and what some industry leaders are doing to make the seamless management of unified global networks a possibility for our military.

One of the advancements and innovative solutions available to the United States Department of Defense (DoD) is the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) Portal, a recently-released application that can enable military users to see their entire network – including both space and ground assets – on a single pane of glass. This new solution gives the military transparency into everything on their networks and allows for the easier management and operations of both terrestrial and space network assets and capabilities.

In the second part of our conversation with Ram, we asked specifically about the ICT Portal – what functionality it offers, how it can help the DoD, and what it will enable for the warfighter.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): In our last discussion, you talked about the sheer number of different space and ground networks that the DoD needs to see and manage as they work to integrate their own space assets with those of coalition and industry partners. How does the lack of a single, all-encompassing view of the network impact the military’s ability to manage its networks to overcome denied or disrupted capabilities or services? How does this impact the warfighter in the field?

Ram Rao: I have heard every high-ranking official in our military discuss the need to increase the speed of delivery and the speed of operations. But to accomplish this, they need end-to-end communications and data-centric global networks.

They are also looking to reduce the latency in satellite networks from the 600ms offered by satellites in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) to the 150-50ms offered by satellites in Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO).

Timing is everything for warfighters. It’s no surprise that our adversaries are working towards pursuing efficient delivery capabilities. To continue to compete and win in the future, we need to remain faster and more effective despite their efforts.

“The ICT Portal is a web-based NetOps set of tools providing end-to-end situational awareness in a consumable “single pane of glass” user interface.” – Ram Rao

Global integration of our networks is crucial for seamless connectivity from one end of Earth to the other through various space and ground connections. The lack of a unified network will significantly and adversely impact the speed at which we deliver information and capabilities to warfighters, drastically reducing their effectiveness. However, with an integrated, resilient network – and agreed-upon access – there should not be any denials or disruptions.

GSR: What is the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) Portal? What was the initial concept and intention for the portal? What tools or capabilities does the ICT Portal give to military and government users?

Ram Rao: The ICT Portal is a flagship capability we offer to our customers and mission partners as a part of our network solutions. The ICT Portal is a web-based NetOps set of tools providing end-to-end situational awareness in a consumable “single pane of glass” user interface. The consolidated network visibility provides our mission partners something they generally don’t have with COMSATCOM networks – a near real-time view into the network.

Even when COMSATCOM networks work in tandem with MILSATCOM networks, the ICT Portal gives users a view of their space segment, teleports, gateways, hubs, and terrestrial circuits – all the way to the individual user terminals.

The ICT Portal offers users five views into their network – each with multiple capabilities. These capabilities and functionality include an operational dashboard, terminal console, capacity management tool, and reporting tools. Within each capability view are a variety of sub-views, each with dozens or sometimes hundreds of data points to observe, filter, and use to improve the understanding of the SATCOM network.

“Our ICT Portal’s satellite coverage overlays allow users to see both EIRP and G/T maps of the satellite coverage in their network. The intent of this capability is to show users their satellite coverage within the deployment area.” – Ram Rao

SES Space & Defense’s intention has always been to support our mission partners with capabilities that deliver complete visibility and transparency into their networks and provide the situational awareness required to make timely, informed decisions.

GSR: Can you provide an example of how and why the ICT Portal could be useful to the military doing a mission or operation? What could it enable them to do?

Ram Rao: Our ICT Portal’s satellite coverage overlays allow users to see both EIRP and G/T maps of the satellite coverage in their network. The intent of this capability is to show users their satellite coverage within the deployment area.

This enables them to know – before they deploy – the minimum terminal specification required in that location. For example, if they are in the 50 dBW contour, they will need a minimum of a 1.2-meter antenna with a four-watt BUC. Users can also select multiple footprints to see where they have overlapping or redundant coverage. This capability immensely helps quick and efficient planning.

Another useful example is our VSAT Point Assist tool. While it is best practice to always do a site survey prior to deploying a VSAT terminal, we understand that it’s not always possible for DoD missions. The VSAT Point Assist tool provides field techs with a way to do site surveys virtually.

“We are continually working with our customers to improve and expand the capabilities of the ICT Portal.” – Ram Rao

The VSAT Point Assist tool allows users to input a location and choose a satellite. It then generates an estimated pointing angle and provides other necessary information, such as elevation and azimuth angles. Users can also drag the icon to different locations to ensure a clear path to the satellite.

The goal is to enable the military to conduct site surveys without a physical presence in theater and save significant time and costs while allowing them to better prepare for missions in advance.

Another useful example I’ll share is the ICT Portal Weather Overlay capability, which offers more than 150 different options of illustrating near real-time, historical, and forecasted weather information. This tool allows users to select as many of these events as they want and add them to the active list – such as active fire points, lightning strikes, tropical cyclones, and other live weather events. They can even see hurricanes and their paths.

These overlays are essential to improve situational awareness for our warfighters. It allows them to visualize how rain, snow, or ice may affect satellite connections and identify any alternatives they may have.

GSR: Is the ICT Portal available today? If not, when will it be available? Also, who will be able to utilize it?

Ram Rao: The ICT Portal is available today for SES Space & Defense network customers and is being utilized by some of our current government partners.

We are continually working with our customers to improve and expand the capabilities of the ICT Portal. We have an extensive road map to add new capabilities and features to the ICT Portal, including AI/ML capabilities, a complete cyber monitoring package, and fully customizable reporting packages. We also plan to enable select mission partners to control portions of the network as needed for critical mission success.

To learn more about the SES Space & Defense ICT Portal or request a demonstration, click HERE.

The post The SES Space & Defense ICT Portal – Meeting Military Transparency and Network Management Requirements for Multi-Domain Operations appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

As part of the announcement of the deal closing, SES also revealed that David Fields would become the new President and CEO of SES Space and Defense. The thirty-year veteran of the satellite and IT industries would be taking over for Brigadier General Pete Hoene, who would be retiring.

The Government Satellite Report recently had the opportunity to sit down with Fields to discuss the acquisition, what it means for DRS GES and SES Space and Defense customers, and what his first priorities are as President and CEO.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): What kind of business was DRS Global Enterprise Solutions (GES)? What solutions and services did the organization offer? Which government agencies and organizations were among GES’ customers?

David Fields: The DRS GES was in space integration. They were not a satellite operator like SES.

As an integrator, DRS GES would work with government agencies to understand their customers’ satellite and communications needs and requirements. They would then connect those government customers with the best satellite solutions to fit their needs.

We will continue to bring the best of the industry together to meet the demanding mission requirements of agencies across the US Government.” -David Fields

DRS GES was always vendor agnostic – leveraging relationships across the satellite communications industry to get the best, most effective solutions for their government customers. That is something that will not change despite now being a part of SES Space and Defense. We will continue to bring the best of the industry together to meet the demanding mission requirements of agencies across the US Government.

GSR: Why was the acquisition of DRS GES the right decision for SES? How does the addition of the DRS GES business synergize with the company’s existing offerings and capabilities?

David Fields: DRS GES and SES have incredibly complementary capabilities. We’re effectively pulling together portfolios from two successful companies and creating an entity with the combined capabilities to meet even the largest and most critical government satellite requirements.

The integration of the two organizations brings together incredible capability and expertise in  end-to-end network management and multi-band and multi-orbit satellite communications. We’re combining an organization that manages over 10,000 terminals across government networks with a satellite provider that has deep expertise in offering best-in-class satellite communications from multiple orbits.

GSR: Why is DRS GES being organized under SES Space and Defense? Why does this make the most sense for both organizations?

David Fields: Even though the organizations’ offerings didn’t directly overlap – with DRS GES being an integrator and SES Space and Defense being a satellite operator, we did have common U.S. government customers.

While GES did have some non-government customers, they represented a small part of the business. So, it makes sense to bring together two organizations with a long history of servicing the government, deep knowledge about the unique challenges that government customers face, and the importance of their missions.

DRS GES’ terrestrial network has a Risk Management Framework (RMF) authorization from the U.S. Government and is completely approved to connect to government networks.” -David Fields

Bottom line is that both business units have trusted partnerships that have a strong record of enabling many of the most demanding, mission-critical applications required by the US government. With this experience—and now with the organizational scale, technology assets, and technical competencies from the GES acquisition—SES Space and Defense is poised to deepen these customer relationships and deliver long-term value that sustains market leadership.

GSR: What will the addition of  DRS GES mean for SES Space and Defense customers? What new capabilities or services will this make available to them?

David Fields:  DRS GES brings a very significant terrestrial network to the table, as well as a teleport and network operations capability. DRS GES’ terrestrial network has a Risk Management Framework (RMF) authorization from the U.S. Government and is completely approved to connect to government networks. That cyber posture will be a huge advantage for SES Space and Defense customers moving forward.

Also, early on, we’ll be looking to integrate DRS GES’ Information & Communications Technology (ICT) portal and SES Space and Defense capabilities for network management. Doing so, will provide SES Space and Defense’s customers with a transparent, single-pane view of the network. We’ve already begun rolling it out for DRS GES customers, and we’re looking forward to offering that capability to SES Space and Defense customers, as well.

GSR: What does this acquisition mean for DRS GES customers? What can they expect now that DRS GES is a part of SES Space and Defense?

David Fields: DRS GES has been satellite agnostic throughout its entire existence and takes pride in bringing the best satellite services and solutions to their customers based on their unique needs and requirements.

O3b mPOWER is revolutionary in capacity, flexibility, latency, and automation and will open the door for advanced capabilities for our US government and DoD customers.” -David Fields

But now, DRS GES customers will also have immediate access to a fleet of satellites in multiple orbits – GEO and MEO — and multiple frequency bands enabling them to meet surge capacity requirements in a timely manner.

Our DRS GES customers will also have access to SES’ upcoming next-generation Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellite constellation, O3b mPOWER. O3b mPOWER is revolutionary in capacity, flexibility, latency, and automation and will open the door for advanced capabilities for our US government and DoD customers.

GSR: As the new President and CEO of SES Space and Defense, how has your career to date and past experiences positioned you to succeed in this role?

David Fields: My career has spanned more than 30 years, working with large government contractors and small companies, alike. I’ve worked with satellite operators, integrators, and in the IT industry – I’ve even started and sold two of my own startup companies.

We’re seeing massive innovation across the industry and a shift from constellations in a single orbit to satellite fleets spanning multiple orbits, particularly non-geostationary orbits (NGSO).” -David Fields

I believe my experience across all these complementary industries will benefit SES Space and Defense following the acquisition of DRS GES. I particularly think my startup experience will be beneficial. While neither SES Space and Defense nor DRS GES is a startup company, the resulting company will look very different following the acquisition.

GSR: What are your top priorities in this new role as CEO of SES Space and Defense? What can SES Space and Defense customers expect?

David Fields: My highest priority and our largest responsibility are delivering continued, consistent operations for our customers. Regardless of how we organize the company, how we combine its capabilities together, or the resulting corporate structure – the process needs to be seamless and transparent to our customers, and there can be no effect on operations.

GSR: Why is now such an exciting time to be at the helm of a satellite company? What industry trends and government trends make this point in time so important in the space and satellite industries?

David Fields: The industry is completely changing. We’re seeing massive innovation across the industry and a shift from constellations in a single orbit to satellite fleets spanning multiple orbits, particularly non-geostationary orbits (NGSO).

The fact is that today’s modern government systems and applications have increased throughput demands and required the industry to change the paradigm of satellite communications. In doing so, the industry has responded with the evolution of satellite constellations at MEO and Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). It’s exciting and driving a new wave of innovation and change that is unprecedented in the industry.

It’s unlike anything that I’ve witnessed in my thirty-year career.

To learn more about the acquisition of DRS GES by SES, click HERE.

The post What the SES acquisition of DRS GES means for the satellite industry appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Both the establishment of the new U.S. Space Force and that agency’s SATCOM vision are based on a universal understanding that the space domain is no longer an uncontested, benign environment for our military. Our adversaries today are increasingly capable of blocking, jamming or attacking satellites – making it possible for them to deny the technological and strategic advantage that space resources have delivered to the warfighter in the past.

The new NDAA, the new Space Force, and the new SATCOM vision are a reaction and answer to this new reality and new challenge in space.

Aside from the establishment of the Space Force, how does the new NDAA impact the way the military acquires satellite resources? What exactly is in that new SATCOM vision that will defend military satellite capabilities? How does the establishment of the Space Force change the way military interacts and engages with the commercial space and satellite industries?

Jon Bennett, the Vice President for Government Affairs, Marketing and Corporate Communications at SES Space and Defense, recently joined the Government Technology Insider Podcast to educate listeners about this and other topics. During his discussion with GTI Podcast host, Peter Jacobs, Jon talked about the provisions in the new NDAA, the revolutionary approach laid out in the Space Force SATCOM vision and the ways that the military is transforming how it approaches space and the acquisition of space resources.

Click the PLAY button below to listen to their conversation.

For additional information on the role that next generation commercial satellites can play in delivering essential government applications and communications, click HERE.

The post PODCAST – how the 2020 NDAA and Space Force revolutionize the military’s approach to space appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

This is one of the reasons why the military continues to rely on X-band satellites and frequencies for their communications requirements – they’re considered more effective and reliable. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense (DoD) has another resiliency problem when it comes to its X-band satellite constellation, WGS. There are less than a dozen WGS satellites, making the bandwidth on those satellites a precious and limited commodity.

There are numerous instances where users with an X-band or a military Ka-band terminal operating on WGS could suddenly find themselves without satellite communications. Maybe the bandwidth needed isn’t available. Or maybe WGS isn’t available. Or they’ve been bumped off of WGS for a higher priority user.

These aren’t hypothetical situations – they actually happen.

In any of those scenarios that I listed, the user can either go without satellite communications or they can turn to the commercial market. The latter is often what they do – acquiring COMSATCOM capabilities on the spot market to fill the SATCOM requirements that WGS can’t.

There are numerous reasons why this isn’t ideal. This method of satellite acquisition is time consuming, takes some level of effort, and can be expensive and limiting.  This acquisition process keeps the military from leveraging the full innovation and creativity of the commercial industry, but it isn’t ideal from a terminal hardware perspective either.

A terminal situation
The X-band and military Ka terminals that military personnel are deployed with are certified and registered military satellite terminals that have been rigorously tested and vetted to ensure that they work with WGS. The military goes through this process to not only ensure that the terminal functions as advertised, but also to learn its idiosyncrasies. The military doesn’t want any surprises for its warfighters in theater, so they learn everything about these satellite terminals and train the user in the field how to get the most out of them.

Unfortunately, with the vast majority of commercial satellites operating at Ku-, C-, or commercial Ka-bands, these military terminals can’t be used on the vast majority of commercial satellites. This most likely means carrying an additional terminal for additional resiliency over commercial SATCOM.

A more sophisticated solution would be a commercial satellite that delivers the same X and mil Ka-band services as a military satellite. And that’s exactly what is possible with GovSat-1.

GovSat-1 is a commercially owned and operated satellite that gives the military the security and reliability of MILSATCOM with the availability, innovative technology, and accessibility of COMSATCOM. GovSat-1 is effectively a military AND government satellite, built using a rapid commercial approach whilst maintaining the robust requirements of a military satellite. It provides both X and mil-Ka frequency bands and features many of the advanced capabilities and securities that are found in today’s more advanced communications satellites.

Most importantly to the topic at hand – GovSat-1 can operate and work with the same military approved satellite terminals that the warfighter already uses with the WGS satellite constellation. This means that only one terminal needs to be carried. A terminal that has undergone rigorous testing, trials and vetting and that the operator has been trained on to ensure optimal performance.

And that brings us back to our original discussion about resiliency…

Imagine that you’re a satellite operator at a forward operating base. The WGS satellite that you were relying on for mission-critical communications is not available because it either doesn’t have the capacity available for your requirements, or has been denied by the adversary.

In this instance, the ability to seamlessly roll over to a commercial X band satellite is pertinent. And the ability to do so with the same terminal could be invaluable. By having a commercial option like GovSat-1 that utilizes military technology, the DoD can increase the resiliency of their satellite networks and give the warfighter a way to seamlessly meet their satellite requirements without changing terminals or losing the safety and security of operating in X-band.

To learn more about GovSat-1 and its benefits to the warfighter, click HERE.

The post Talking turkey about satellite terminals appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Fully coordinated X-band has been available on commercial terms since 2005, and with more becoming available each year. What was once the sole domain of governments and the military is now an accessible resource to fulfill the most demanding of missions.

The military machine once viewed this commercially available X-band with distrust and comments like: Surely it is an inferior product, less capable and less secure? Can we trust the commercial satellite operator to be there when we need them? Surely it is the most expensive alternative to using military satellites?

Roll forward almost 15 years and we are into our second generation of commercially available military frequencies; expanded, more capable than ever, and with a track record of always being there to support every military operation from Desert Storm to Gothic Serpent to Enduring Freedom to Inherent Resolve. Commercial satellites can and will be there for every future military operation.

Capabilities dramatically improve with each iteration of commercial satellites, with satellite providers continually adding more throughput, more spectrum, and more power. This means the user on the ground gets more options, more competition – which means lower prices – and the ability to pick the right solution to fit the mission, without compromising on mission TTPs to fit the SATCOM solution. Commercially available military frequencies are just one more option on the smorgasbord of commercial solutions.

These military frequencies provide practical cost-effective solutions to mission parameters that demand high throughput, resilience, reliability, and small mobile terminals. With the addition of military frequencies to commercial satellites, the cost-value tradeoff is no longer a major factor.

X-band is a particularly effective satellite frequency band in regions with drastic climates. X-band mitigates the effects of rain and sandstorm activity that degrade satellite link performance. Military satellites and frequency bands are used for high-priority missions where active operations are happening. It is no coincidence that the commercially available military frequencies are available in the same high-activity regions. This additional layer of redundancy in commercial bandwidth is intended to provide an overlay and augmentation of existing military satellites to support the same missions in the same high-activity regions. Commercial providers are here to serve – now, and tomorrow.

For additional information on the role that commercial satellite services can play in providing necessary X-band and Ka-band capacity to the military, click HERE.

The post Making the case for commercial X-band satellite service appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

As Gen. Goldfein explained, his vision for future multi-domain operations, “…isn’t just about the domains…nor is it just about executing operations across these domains, we already do that now. Where we’re going is to use dominance in one domain or many, blending a few capabilities or many, to produce multiple dilemmas for our adversaries in a way that will overwhelm them. This is where we’re going.”

On display in the video presentation was a fictional military situation being responded to by the military that Gen. Goldfein claimed we’d need in 2030 – and the force that he and his contemporaries are prepared to create for our nation. And, from my seat in the National Harbor’s Gaylord resort, it was certainly impressive.

The vignette illustrated an integrated and collaborative approach to multi-domain operations that showcased how sea, air, land, space and cyber operations – working collaboratively – could be pressed into service to quickly respond to escalating aggressions from an adversary and almost immediately repel a fictional invasion of an imaginary allied nation.

And while the vignette and presentation was impressive and aspirational, it was also frustrating for some in the room. That’s because, while it incorporated coalition forces in practically every domain, it was obviously missing something that the Air Force has claimed it would increasingly rely upon in the future – commercial satellites.

Why commercial satellite matters
While there are many things that commercial satellite services could deliver to the military, there are two specific benefits that I really consider the most important – innovation and resiliency. And both of those things could have been used by the fictional force in Gen. Goldfein’s vignette.

Air Force senior leadership has admitted on numerous occasions that the commercial satellite industry is the clear leader in space today. It’s the leader because it moves quickly and must satiate the world’s enormous appetite for satellite capacity.

Commercial satellite providers are constantly building and launching new satellites to replace aging spacecraft and to fill the capacity requirements of their customers. With the nearly constant and rapid pace of satellite development, construction and launch, the commercial satellite industry gets frequent opportunities to incorporate the latest and greatest technology advancements into their satellites.

Compare this to how the military has traditionally operated. The military has been building and launching similar WGS satellites for a decade. And the time it takes the military to design, develop, build and launch a new satellite means that, by the time they launch a new satellite, the technologies on it are no longer cutting edge.

When it comes to resiliency, commercial satellite providers have been long fighting against the misconception that their services are in some way less resilient and secure than military satellites. And there is a good reason why that misconception exists, there are demonstrated benefits to operating in the X band frequency, as satellite expert, Phil Harlow, recently articulated in another article on the Government Satellite Report:

“With only ten [X band] WGS satellites in orbit, there is less chance of adjacent satellite interference. This means that more power can be put down from each satellite without fear of interfering with other, adjacent satellites (or being interfered with by other satellites). This higher power results in a stronger signal on the ground that further overcomes attenuation from environmental factors, increases throughputs and improves link reliability.”

However, the small number of WGS satellites creates a resiliency problem itself. If a near-peer adversary is looking to deny the military’s satellite services – which have long been a strategic edge for our military – they only have ten potential satellites to target.

This lack of diversity makes it easier for enemies to target and deny satellite capabilities, which is why Kimberly Morris, satellite communications operations division head at the U.S. Naval Network Warfare Command recently called for an increase in satellite options when she said, “We need diversity – we need a wide range of diversity,” at this summer’s Milsatcom USA Conference.

By utilizing commercial satellites in conjunction with military satellites, the ecosystem of potential satellites that could be carrying military signals increases from ten to more than 150. This not only can help disrupt an adversary’s targeting calculus, but also provide back-ups should military satellites be denied. As Morris said at the same event, “You go after our [military-owned] systems, I’ve got something else that I can get to. Historically, with a lot of the weapon systems that are brought to bear in the modern age, it’s not the primary system that has been a hero, it’s the secondary system, because the enemy puts so much effort into taking out that primary system.”

With the potential to increase resiliency and bring new, innovative solutions to bear, it’s clear that commercial satellite needs to be a part of military plans in the future. So why wasn’t it in the vignette? Especially since it could have been so beneficial?

What could have been – and what will be
During Gen. Goldfein’s vignette, the two coalition military satellites being relied upon for communications in every other domain were jammed by adversary space assets. The response of the coalition forces in the vignette were to bomb targets deep in enemy territory and relocate military spacecraft – which is an extremely time-consuming and risky response.

How would that have played out if this futuristic force was utilizing a combined commercial and military satellite architecture?

First, the adversary would have struggled mightily to target the correct satellites. Today’s commercial satellite industry operates innovative new satellites in more orbits than just the traditional geostationary orbit. With more than 150 satellites in multiple different orbits – including GEO, MEO and LEO – that could have been transmitting military communications in theater, the adversary would have struggled mightily to identify which satellite to target for jamming or even kinetic attacks.

Should the adversary jammed or denied the correct satellites, the coalition forces in the vignette would have had an even easier, far less risky response should they have been using an integrated commercial and military satellite architecture. They simply could have relocated a digitally-steered beam from a different commercial satellite – possibly even one in a different orbit – to deliver high-throughput, low-latency connectivity to the battlefield.

No jets would have needed to be scrambled, no military satellites would have needed to expend precious fuel to be repositioned, and no pilots’ lives would have needed to be risked.

This is why Ken Peterman, the President of Government Systems at Viasat recently told attendees at a panel discussion during SATELLITE 2019 that, “…within government circles, support continues to build for a DoD, hybrid, multi-network adaptive enterprise so that the DoD has the improved resiliency, improved mobility and improved flexibility to take full advantage of commercial innovation.”

So, where do we stand with that “hybrid, multi-network adaptive enterprise,” or integrated commercial and military satellite architecture? I asked Gen. John Raymond, the Commander of United States Space Command, during a media roundtable at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, and he assured us that it’s still on the table – even if it’s not in vignettes.

When asked about the potential to utilize satellites of different sizes and in different orbits, General Raymond responded, “I think what we’ll see in the future is a more hybrid architecture which would provide us with more resiliency.“ And adding commercial satellite to the military’s network architecture and infrastructure was also a priority for Gen. Raymond moving forward.

When asked about the timing and roadmap towards this combined architecture, the General responded, “[The Air Force] had several meetings with the commercial industry to partner with them on a vision going forward. I expect to publish a vision document towards that end in the coming months. We’re here to work with industry and I think that the relationships that we have and that were provided to us by the National Defense Authorization Act will provide us great advantage.”

Both the military and the satellite industry see the potential that an integrated commercial and military satellite architecture could have for our nation’s multi-domain operations in the future. If we’re going to truly win the battle for space and utilize satellites as part of a military response that will, “produce multiple dilemmas for our adversaries in a way that will overwhelm them,” then commercial satellite needs to be an integral part of the Air Force’s plans now and into the future.

Featured image courtesy of the Air Force Association.

The post AFA Conference makes it clear – integrated satellite architecture essential for multi-domain ops appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

While the Department of Defense (DoD) and industry have made solid progress toward that long-sought goal in recent years, there is still a ways to go, these officials said. One thing the government can do in this regard is provide a steady source of dedicated funding in annual defense budgets for commercial satellite services and integration activities, they said.

Pete Hoene, president and chief executive officer of SES Space and Defense, a subsidiary of satellite owner-operator SES, noted that Congress has established a budgetary line item that purpose but suggested the money has yet to start flowing.

“That’s going to make a huge difference, because once it’s funded it’s real,” Hoene said during a luncheon panel discussion on the topic hosted by the Washington Space Business Roundtable.

Traditionally the U.S. military has procured commercial satellite capacity using emergency wartime, or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), funds, rather than through a dedicated account item in the regular DoD budget. As a result, the industry has had difficulty predicting funding levels for any given year, complicating satellite fleet planning and investment.

“Ultimately we have to get out of the OCO budget and into procurement” and research and development dollars, said Skot Butler, president of Intelsat General, the government services arm of satellite operator Intelsat.

Addressing the audience prior to the panel discussion, Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of Air Force Space Command, said work is nearly complete on a strategic plan for military satellite communications that takes into account government and commercial capabilities.

“While we haven’t put it out in a glossy brochure, the strategy itself is done, and the broad area announcement we put out this summer actually begins the process of an implementation plan to get after the most important elements of the strategy,” Thompson said.

A broad area announcement (BAA) is a notice from the government requesting scientific or research proposals from industry in specific areas of interest. Thompson did not elaborate in detail, but may have been referring to the recent Small Business Innovation Research announcement 19.2, which called for proposals in a number of technical areas, including satellite communications, that have commercial potential.

But Thompson conceded there remains a gap between the Air Force’s traditional military satellite communications culture, which is acquisition and platform focused, and the more service-oriented commercial satellite communications industry. “Bringing those together has been a little bit slower than we had hoped but it is still progressing greatly,” he said.

For example, Thompson said, both sides have identified integration priorities including multiband satellite terminals and an “enterprise management” command and control architecture compatible with both military and commercial satellites.  The Air Force’s Pathfinder series of commercial capability demonstrations as well as the BAA include work in those areas, he said.

Thompson also said the newly established U.S. Space Command, led by Air Force Gen. John ”Jay” Raymond, will be taking a major role in ushering in the integrated satellite communications architecture.

During the panel discussion, industry leaders noted recent promising developments in the ongoing relationship between the military and commercial sector. Prominent among these, particularly from the standpoint of an integrated architecture, was the 2018 transfer of procurement responsibility for commercial satellite bandwidth from Defense Information Systems Agency to the Air Force.

Hoene said the Air Force has a different approach, giving greater weight to the overall value of an industry bid, as opposed to favoring those that meet the minimum requirement at the lowest cost. That shift is long overdue and elevates industry to partner status in the military satellite communications enterprise, he said.

“I would hope on the commercial side it allows commercial to be part of the solution and not an afterthought,” said Rick Lober, vice president and general manager of defense and intelligence systems at Hughes Network Systems, a provider of satellite broadband services and ground equipment. “On the military side I hope it helps on the architecture side so we can think through the space segment, the ground segment, and the terminal segment in a more uniform, timely manner.”

For its part, the commercial sector is working on the technologies to help make it all happen. In addition to flexible terminals that are compatible with different satellites and bandwidths, companies are bringing new space capabilities that will benefit the military, the panelists said.

For example, SES, which already provides low-latency services from its O3b constellation in medium Earth orbit, will soon begin launching a next-generation, Boeing-built system called O3b mPOWER with electronically reconfigurable antennas, Hoene noted. This will allow SES to respond quickly to changing military requirements, he said.

The endgame, from industry’s prospective, is a single architecture in which military users can switch seamlessly between government and different commercial satellites, regardless of ownership, the panelists said.

Hoene noted that between the Air Force, with its 10-satellite Wideband Global Satcom constellation, and the world’s leading commercial operators, there are more than 160 satellites in geostationary orbit. Having all those satellites together in an integrated architecture would make life extremely difficult for adversaries intent on disrupting military operations via satellite signal jamming, he said.

The post Integrated military-commercial satellite architecture taking shape appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Commercial solutions helps the military  embrace innovative technologies within their organization more quickly than if they tried to build them themselves. Unfortunately, commercial companies have a bad habit of trying to force the government to change their requirements to meet the specifications of their products – not change their products to meet the government’s requirements.

However, I did provide an example of a case study where a government and a commercial service provider worked together to tailor a commercial solution to the specific requirements of the government –the GovSat-1 satellite, a public-private partnership between the Luxembourg Government and SES. This satellite is effectively commercially-owned and operated, built to meet the unique specification and needs of a government– utilizing the X and mil-Ka frequency bands relied upon by governments and featuring the latest in satellite technologies.

While GovSat-1 is an incredible example of how commercial industry can listen to government requirements and produce a product that meets their needs, it brings up interesting questions. Why does the government need a commercial WGS satellite? Why not just use commercial satellites to fill their communications requirements?

The answer to that involves the inherent differences between MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM satellites and frequencies. So, let’s take a deeper dive into the pros and the cons of both, and it will become increasingly obvious why a commercial government satellite is the best of both worlds for the military.

MILSATCOM: safer, reliable but limited
Despite what we discussed in my last article – that WGS satellites are spacecraft that were designed two decades ago and feature older technology – there are technical benefits to military satellites.

First, there are the technical advantages of operating at the X band frequency. Frequencies below ~10 GHz are not as susceptible to the effects of atmospheric attenuation. This means almost completely clear-sky operation no matter whether you are in a high rain zone or in a dusty desert.

With only ten WGS satellites in orbit, there is less chance of adjacent satellite interference. This means that more power can be put down from each satellite without fear of interfering with other, adjacent satellites (or being interfered with by other satellites). This higher power results in a stronger signal on the ground that further overcomes attenuation from environmental factors, increases throughputs and improves link reliability.

The benefits of MILSATCOM aren’t just technical, there are also operational benefits. All of the individuals operating military satellites are trained professionals. There are no commercial providers or amateurs potentially gumming up the works with miss-pointed antennas, overdriving power amplifiers or being on the wrong frequencies. Ultimately, the spectrum for MILSATCOM is “quieter,” and there is less chance of an unskilled operator inadvertently causing interference. This alone can significantly increase the reliability of MILSATCOM.

But it’s not all positives when it comes to MILSATCOM. There are some reasons why military satellite isn’t always the best option.

First, there’s the issue of compatible terminals and ground infrastructure. Many military users – especially allied partners – don’t have equipment that can work for military frequency bands. The number of military terminals is limited, and the price of them can be exorbitant. This is why many of our allied partners own commercial terminals and prefer to use commercial frequencies.

Then, there’s the issue of capacity. There are only ten WGS satellites in orbit. Those satellites are not the extremely high capacity, high throughput satellites that are currently being built and launched by commercial satellite operators, which means capacity is extremely limited.

Should a military user need or want WGS satellite capacity, chances are they’re going to have to wait in line. If a VIP needs that capacity, or a higher priority mission requires it, there’s a good chance that they’ll have to make do without it, or at least without everything they need.  One significant limitation is the restricted use of small terminals on WGS.  This makes communications on the move, drones and other mobile platforms more compatible with commercial frequencies.

COMSATCOM: abundant, flexible but less secure

There are hundreds of commercial satellites in orbit around the earth right now. Each of those satellites represents an opportunity for the military to get the bandwidth and capacity they need for every mission – without exception. However, there are reasons why the military may be reluctant to utilize COMSATCOM for mission communications and connectivity.

First, there’s the issue with environmental attenuation. Commercial satellites operating at higher frequencies can have their signals deteriorated or denied by rain and other environmental factors. That can be a problem for the military since many missions can’t wait until the rain clears up. On an annual basis, atmospheric attenuation only creates ~15 minutes of downtime per day on average, depending on the frequency band.

Commercial satellites are much closer together than military satellites.  This means that operating conditions require accurate antenna pointing and disciplined operations to prevent accidental interference.  The sharing of a commercial satellite with these non-military users, and the perceived higher incidence of accidental interference leads many military personnel to presume that commercial satellites are less reliable and less secure.  I’ll talk more about the myths of using commercial satellites for military applications in a future post.

All that being said, the sheer number of commercial satellites provides flexibility, diversity and an overall increase in service reliability. If a signal is jammed or denied, there are other satellites that the military can roll onto that won’t be jammed or denied if spare capacity and coverage are available. It’s also harder for an adversary to find the specific satellite that our military is using since there are so many to choose from.

Commercial satellite is an incredible, viable adjunct for the military. But there will always be military leaders that want and need the increased security and reliability of military satellites for their mission-critical communications requirements. And that’s one reason why GovSat-1 is such an effective solution.

GovSat-1 gives the military the security and reliability of MILSATCOM with the availability, innovative technology and accessibility of COMSATCOM, making it a great tool for augmenting the military’s existing satellite infrastructure.

In my next post on the Government Satellite Report, I’ll look at some of the use cases of MILSATCOM and what it can deliver to mobile warfighters.

The post MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM – why they’re better together appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The government tends to move slower than the pace of innovation in these industries. After the government or military’s requirements are established, a bespoke-built solution often takes longer than a commercial build.
With the rapid improvement in technology, if a military program or satellite takes many years from design to going operational, it’s highly likely the capability will be outdated by the time the service starts.

In the meantime, private industry has continued innovating and have released newer products and solutions with better functionality and new capability that could be better at doing the job.

Rapid access to new and innovative technology is a big driver for today’s warfighters.  Military users are growing up with instant access to new technology and expect access to the improvements that new technology brings.  Aside from price, this is one of the best-selling features of commercial technologies, products and services – commercial technologies mean faster access to innovation. But this isn’t a completely one-sided argument.

There are very real reasons why the government and military are often reticent to embrace commercial solutions. Commercial companies don’t always listen to government requirements. And, in my opinion, when they do, they often try to force government entities into reshaping their requirements to meet already existing commercial solutions. Security and robustness needed by the military are usually features that most commercial systems don’t implement fully to the levels that are required.

What’s the alternative? Commercial companies need to do a better job of communicating with the government, identifying their unique requirements and then crafting solutions that meet these requirements, instead of trying to get the requirements to meet the solution. The government/industrial relationship has become too commoditized, too transactional – we miss the truly collaborative interaction that results in the ideal mix of function, schedule and cost, focused on the mission at hand.

And for those that think that this collaborative approach is improbable or far-fetched, I can offer an incredible case study from the satellite industry.

GovSat-1 and building solutions for government

The network-centric nature of today’s military effectively requires that all military operations have access to high bandwidth, low latency connectivity. Network-enabled military platforms, connected vehicles and warfighter capabilities demand it.

The military relies on a mix of highly protected satellites, assured and controlled WGS core capacity with UHF mobile and tactical satcoms for its main capability. This is supported by commercial capacities on a “use until you lose” basis.

In my opinion, WGS satellites are all similarly-built satellites that were designed two decades ago. They were built and then launched in succession from 2007 until 2019 – the tenth WGS satellite in the constellation was launched in March of this year.

Since these satellites were all built on an older design, they lack the advanced capabilities and technologies that are present in today’s more advanced commercial satellites. That’s because, much like I discussed previously, as they were being built, the industry continued to innovate and introduce new technologies and capabilities into spacecraft.

With just ten WGS satellites on orbit, some of which are headed towards end of life, the military often finds itself in need of more capacity than is available. This is exasperated by the older technologies in these satellites, which don’t have the same high-throughput as today’s advanced HTS spacecraft. This forces some missions and organizations to go without satellite service if something more pressing or mission-critical needs the capacity.

To help fill the military’s satellite requirements, many commercial satellite providers have called on them to utilize commercial satellite services – which is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, there will always be some data and communications that the military is hesitant to transmit via commercial satellites – which are often shared with other commercial and government users.

The typical commercial response is to tell the government to change its requirements. If commercial satellite services won’t meet their reliability or security requirements, they should just change them. But that’s a tall “ask” for most in the military, which often would rather make do with what it has than compromise on its mission requirements. Ultimately, this results in the military not getting the right capacity to meet its needs and leaves the commercial satellite industry complaining about it. But there is another path forward, as illustrated by LuxGovSat, a joint venture and stand-alone entity between the Luxembourg Government and SES.

In January of 2018, the Luxembourg Government and SES launched GovSat-1. This satellite is an incredible example of listening to military requirements and creating a solution that meets them, instead of trying to change the requirements.

GovSat-1 is effectively a military and government satellite built using a rapid commercial approach whilst maintaining the robust requirements of a military satellite. It provides both the X and mil-Ka frequency bands specifically dedicated to governments, and features many of the advanced capabilities and technologies that are found in today’s more advanced satellites. This allows the military to get the best of both worlds – they get the reliability and security of military satellite communications from a satellite that delivers the best, most innovative technologies from the commercial industry. It even allows the military to utilize the same terminals and antennas as the WGS constellation, meaning there’s no need to invest in new ground infrastructure.

The government and military should be looking at commercial technologies, products and solutions for meeting their needs. It’s the only way in which to keep pace with innovation and ensure that cutting edge technologies are being utilized to accomplish the mission. But for this to be possible, commercial providers need to be more sensitive and open to government needs and stop trying to force the government to change its requirements to meet their solutions.

GovSat-1 is an example of what can be done when governments and commercial providers work together to accomplish a goal – creating a solution that is tailored to government requirements and doesn’t force them to choose between having a capability and making difficult sacrifices.

In my next post on the Government Satellite Report, I’ll take a deep dive into the difference between military and commercial satellites and talk about the pros and cons of both for government users. For additional information on GovSat-1, click HERE.

The post Collaboration and partnership key to commercial satellite in the military appeared first on SES Space and Defense.