Ahead of the event, the Government Satellite Report had the opportunity to sit down with one of the conference speakers, Juliana Suess – a space security Research Fellow on the Royal United Services Institute’s (RUSI) Military Sciences team and host of the podcast War in Space.

During our discussion, Juliana delves into the current state of the space threat landscape, as well as the role SATCOM and multi-orbit capabilities are currently playing in military operations today, and pulls back the curtain on some of the expected trends and hot topics that will take center stage at the event.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): What does the space-based threat landscape look like for today’s militaries?

Juliana Suess: When we examine the counter-space weapons landscape, there is a whole host of different capabilities that range from temporary and reversible measures to the non-reversible and permanent damage end of the spectrum.

Though space has become increasingly contested within the last few years, I think what we’ve been seeing are counter-space attacks that fall on the temporary and reversible range in the electromagnetic spectrum or the cyber sphere, though kinetic tests against states’ own assets have also taken place.

GSR: What impact is SATCOM having on multi-domain military operations today? 

Juliana Suess: SATCOM is a key enabler for all operations. I think quite often there’s a misconception that space is an add-on luxury that militaries can begin to afford once everything else is in order. In reality, space-based capabilities are a requisite, because we need SATCOM as part of a military’s daily operations.

If we look at the UK Space Power doctrine, not only does it already state that the vast majority of operations couldn’t be sustained without space, but it also goes on to say that SATCOM is responsible for all beyond-line-of-site communications. So, whether it is an aircraft or a vessel at sea, all multi-domain operations are made possible through satellite communications.

Space is a connector. Without the information and data that we receive through SATCOM and space, a lot of modern military operations simply wouldn’t be possible.

GSR: What benefits are multi-orbit SATCOM capabilities providing to military operations today? 

Juliana Suess: Resilience is a key aspect as it pertains to multi-orbit SATCOM. For example, if an orbit was compromised through a Kessler syndrome-type event or through a large-scale attack on satellites that would make part of an orbit unsafe, having the resilient capability of migrating service to a different orbit and using those satellites is tremendously impactful.

There’s also a utility aspect in these orbits to be considered. For example, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) has very low latency. Communications that don’t have to be classified or tightly secured can leverage a commercial provider in LEO. Whereas more highly secure communication channels can then be reserved for the assets that sit in Geostationary Orbit (GEO).

GSR: What are some of the challenges, needs, and requirement trends you’re seeing from militaries as it pertains to satellite capabilities? What gaps still need to be bridged?

Juliana Suess: In the UK, we have SKYNET – our sovereign satellite communications program which covers a lot of the required satellite capabilities that we need. But when we specifically look at Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), the UK is still very reliant on the U.S, although at least some of those gaps could be bridged with commercial partners.

I think the challenge overall – and the UK is not unique to this – is just money. Space is expensive and space-based projects take a long time. For example, the UK could no longer be part of the EU’s Galileo space program, which is the EU’s answer to GPS. The idea was floated that the UK could build its own PNT system, but the funding aspect made it impossible for a country the size of the UK.

In terms of further trends that we’re seeing, I think resilience will be a continuing factor and consideration as we continue to build out space capabilities. That will translate to having onboard resilience elements such as inter-satellite links that allow satellites to jump over compromised ground segments. Having proliferated constellations in conjunction with multi-orbit capabilities will also be a continuing trend. Militaries will continue to not put all their eggs in one orbital basket, which will be incredibly helpful.

GSR: Next week, military and space industry leaders will convene at the Defence in Space Conference in London. What are the hot topics and trends you foresee being discussed at the event?

Juliana Suess: Since the conference will be an industry-heavy event, I think there will be a lot of discussions around the sovereign assets versus buy-in debate. The UK has put forward the Own-Collaborate-Access (OCA) framework through which it wants to view its space capabilities and the procurement of those capabilities. So, I think that’s definitely a topic that will be explored in terms of how to strike the right balance, as well as if commercial partners are brought into the fold how can they be protected from potential attacks?

When we saw the cyberattack against ViaSat at the beginning of the large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that was a commercial provider that had the Ukrainian military as one of its clients. That cyberattack highlighted the vulnerability of commercial actors, especially when they’re being used by armed forces or states.

That brings me to the next trend that I think will have a lot of discussion around it, which is how do we keep pace with the threat? I think specifically for space, we need to make a lot more consideration of horizon scanning when it comes to threats because once you put a satellite into space, it’s could be in orbit for the next 10 to 15 years.

In terms of anticipating threats that we need to protect against, we must prepare our hardware and software before launch. In that sense, space is quite unique as we must make more considerations on future protection and resilience before they even become operational.

To learn more about the Defence in Space conference, click HERE.

The post From Sovereign Space to the Pace of the Threat – What to Expect from Defence in Space 2024 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.