Al-Saleh explained that international geopolitics have been the compelling forces behind the desire of world governments to achieve sovereignty of their space systems. “There are tensions and races to figure out who can control communications and who can have access to intelligence bifurcations of the world in different political systems,” Al-Saleh explained. “It’s becoming more and more challenging to figure out how do you become sovereign.”

Defense departments around the globe are currently facing significant, not seen before challenges due to the sophistication of kinetic and cyber-attack methods that could drastically impact the availability of their satellite networks. Al-Saleh pointed to the rise of complex cyberattacks as not only a threat to space sovereignty, but also a motivating factor for governments to attain sovereignty over their systems. “It’s harder to detect, and the nature of cybersecurity now is not just about prevention,” explained Al-Saleh. “It’s about how you react to them.”

Governments are now beginning to shift their focus on how they can protect their space assets and the critical data they transmit in a way that prioritizes sovereignty. For Al-Saleh, he views sovereignty in three distinct components.

The three types of sovereignty
The first is technology sovereignty, which – according to Al-Saleh – is rooted in the idea of having a proliferation of connectivity, communications, and networking paths. Sole reliance on a single technology stream can create an incredibly easy target for adversaries to take advantage of.

If a government or military’s primary source for comms or satellite connectivity is taken out through a cyber or jamming attack, it leaves them with no alternative source to fall back on in times of emergency. Having multiple sources and redundant streams for SATCOM can make an adversary’s target radius extremely small, making it more difficult for an attack to have a widespread effect.

The second component of true communication sovereignty, underlined by Al-Saleh, is operational sovereignty. This pertains to the idea that world governments and militaries should not be fully reliant on third parties to have a functional SATCOM architecture. “How do you make sure that you’re not dependent on somebody operating your infrastructure?” asked Al-Saleh. “You have to have control, to be able to access it, and to move from one contract to the other.”

The last dimension of Al-Saleh’s vision for sovereignty is rooted in data protection. Having assurance that a government’s data is secure, protected, and doesn’t get into the hands of adversaries is a driving force behind reaching a state of sovereignty over a nation’s space assets. “Ownership and control of all the data that you need, must be protected,” said Al-Saleh. “How do you do that in this fast-changing world?”

Partner to enable sovereignty and increase resiliency
Al-Saleh pointed to the PPP model as an important enabler to governments making their space sovereignty visions a reality. He cited numerous, successful collaborations between SES and governments as a sign that sovereignty is possible and within reach.

One partnership example that he highlighted was the collaboration between SES and the Luxembourg government which resulted in GovSat being established. Al-Saleh said, “GovSat is a secure SATCOM capability that is entirely dedicated to governments and institutions. We have a satellite and secure mission operations centre delivering a dedicated service using military bands. We also have dedicated gateways and terminals.”

He underlined that this blueprint can be replicated amongst other ally governments and militaries across the globe. “It’s set up so that the satellite connectivity solutions can be shared with other nations,” said Al-Saleh. “This particular solution can be accessed by NATO and Allied nations.”

MEO Global Services (MGS) is another example that Al-Saleh cited as a successful use case enabling space sovereignty. Through MGS, Luxembourg, the United States and NATO will be able to access SES’s latest SATCOM technology O3b mPOWER for defense and security and disaster recovery. “We’re able to offer services that are of the latest technology, jam-resistant, and feature flexibility and scalability. It is a revolutionary setup .”

To make partnerships work, Al-Saleh explained there are some key enablers that must be part of the process. “One is leveraging existing infrastructure,” said Al-Saleh. “There is a tendency to wish to build something new and something dedicated. And with the examples that I just used, there are highly efficient ways to leverage existing infrastructure and deliver the sovereign solution where the government customer has full control.”

It’s also important to make sure security requirements of the participating governments are met and that roles of each party involved – whether private or government sector – are clearly defined.

“When private sector brings innovation, and government supports it with investment, we create something that’s usable for governments and for commercial purposes across the world,” he said.

Finally, speed of execution is key. Faced with the geopolitical realities of today, Al-Saleh said that parties have to move faster to come up with the right solution. “As an industry where paradigms of satellite manufacturing and operations are constantly evolving, we must all embrace these disruptions to propose the right solution for governments. And together, we have to move fast, to stay ahead of disruption.”

The post SES CEO on Achieving Sovereign Systems Quickly 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.