The ABMS program is revolutionary and has the potential to deliver new command, control, situational awareness, and intelligence capabilities to the battlefield. And the incredible bandwidth requirements of connecting the immense ecosystem of sensors and devices on the battlefield makes a multi-orbit satellite service – like the one operated by SES – essential for the system.

So the selection of SES Space and Defense satellite services to power the ABMS really isn’t that surprising.

What is surprising? The contract that was signed between SES Space and Defense and the Air Force – an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract that allows SES Space and Defense to compete for individual task orders that together have a ceiling value of $950 million.

According to Jon Bennett, the VP of Government Affairs, Marketing and Corporate Communications at SES Space and Defense, the IDIQ contract that was awarded to SES Space and Defense for the acquisition of MEO and GEO satellite services is not only something completely new in the world of military satellite acquisition, it could also indicate an ongoing and radical shift in the military’s relationship with satellite providers.

We recently caught up with Jon to record a new episode of the Government Satellite Report Podcast. During our discussion, we asked about why this IDIQ contract is so special, what it means for the future of satellite acquisition in the military and why it’s an encouraging sign for satellite providers.

Click the PLAY button below to listen to the podcast:

For additional information on SES’s work toward supporting ABMS CLICK HERE!

The post PODCAST: The revolutionary ABMS IDIQ and what it means for military satellite acquisition appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Today, commercial industry is the innovator in space – building and launching new and advanced satellites with exciting new technologies and even launching them into new orbits. But even as the COMSATCOM industry has evolved and matured, the way the government interacted with it and purchased services from it stayed the same.

The government and United States military has long filled gaps in satellite requirements and availability with lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) COMSATCOM services and capacity that they’ve purchased on the spot market. That acquisition method remains in place – which many satellite industry experts would point out is at the detriment of the government.

However, steps are being taken that could elicit some significant change in the relationship between COMSATCOM providers and the Department of Defense (DoD). To get some additional historical perspective on the relationship between the DoD and the COMSATCOM industry, and to learn more about the steps being taken to revolutionize the ways these entities interact, we sat down with Allan Ballenger, a retired Air Force colonel and the current Corporate Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at SES Space and Defense.

Here is what Allan had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): Can you tell us a little bit about the traditional method of purchasing SATCOM capacity on the spot market? Why is that bad for the military?

Allan Ballenger: One reason that buying on the spot market is not a good idea for the US government is that it may not be there at the time and place of the government’s choosing. The commercial market is very dynamic, and if the government needs a particular type of capacity – frequency or orbital slot – it may not be available when they need it.

Instead, by working proactively with industry to help determine a more enterprise architecture approach, the government could sit down in advance and say, “here’s the type of capacity that we need and here’s how we would consider commercial as part of our overall architecture.”

We believe that this is a smarter approach for USG, and that approach seems to be gaining traction in the Air Force Space Command.

GSR: We’ve heard that there are also problems with the kinds of funds that they can buy satellite capacity with. Is that accurate?

Allan Ballenger: That’s accurate on several fronts. To the government’s credit, especially the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center, it pursued various pathfinders, prototypes and pilot programs to explore different aspects of commercial satellite communications.

One of the areas where they ran into roadblocks was in how to structure a long-term commitment with industry partners when Congress allocates money for one or two years at a time. That’s one of the areas that has caused some concern – structuring a more commercial-like business deal but still being confined to the color and length of money restrictions that the US government has.

GSR: You talked about an alternative – having a better, more collaborative relationship and creating a more integrated satellite architecture. What does that relationship look like?

Allan Ballenger: The relationship is more like a partner relationship rather than a vendor relationship.  To me, a vendor relationship is like buying a new car. You may have a sense of what is important to you, but you don’t really care who you buy it from. You just want the best deal on that particular purchase. In other cases, when you make a purchase decision, you may care more about the relationship and the level of trust and confidence you have in that relationship – such as when you’re picking a doctor or having a medical procedure.

What we think would be good is to develop a sense of partnership with the US government and industry providers, where the government recognizes the contributions of commercial satellites to their overall communications architecture. I believe that that change has been taking place over recent years, which is a good thing, but there are still those elements that view the world through a narrower lens.

If you’re buying a pure commodity like tires or paper clips, you can and should purchase an LPTA solution. We believe that it’s not in the best interest of the government when it comes to complex technical solutions. That’s not to say that LPTA is always bad; we’re just saying that it’s been misapplied when it comes to commercial satellite communications.

Congress has recognized that in the past few years. We’ve seen recent solicitations steering the departments away from LPTA for complex technical solutions. We believe that will ultimately result in better pricing and better mission success.

GSR: What steps is the military taking to better integrate COMSATCOM and commercial partners into its integrated satellite architecture as trusted partners and less as a provider of a commodity?

Allan Ballenger: There have been a couple of things that have moved the ball in a positive direction. Congressional legislation in late 2017 – Section 1601 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 – shifted the procurement of COMSATCOM from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to Air Force Space Command.

When that legislation passed, the core government staff reached out almost immediately – and multiple times – across the industry to start getting input as they transitioned to Air Force Space Command. That ultimately resulted in a strategic working group hosted by Air Force Space Command that brought together leadership elements from Space Command, the U.S. government, and key industry partners. That was a step in the right direction in establishing trust and partnership as Air Force Space Command assumed a leadership role in satellite communications procurement.

Another area that is less recent but also very important is the government’s establishment of a commercial innovation cell within the Combined Space Operations Center (C-SPOC), formerly known as the Joint Space Operations Center.

Within C-SPOC, they’ve had this Commercial Innovation Cell (CIC) for several years that brings together eight commercial companies. [Those companies] all participate in a cooperative research and development agreement. That means that there is no additional cost to the government, but there is a mutual benefit to the government and to the companies, so the government gets the benefit of direct and timely insight about what exactly is going on with commercial satellite constellations, and the companies get insight into how the government is operating and how commercial satellites can be used throughout the Department of Defense.

Through that relationship, we work day-to-day – on a confidential level – on the integration of commercial and government satellites. It gives us insight on how we can shape our future commercial capabilities to fulfill the government’s future needs.

GSR: This movement away from LPTA and the move of acquisition authority from DISA to Space Command and collaboration through C-SPOC all help make industry a more trusted government partner…but is it enough? If not, what else has to be done?

Allan Ballenger: The real challenge is crafting the integrated enterprise architecture and vision that includes both purpose-built government satellites and commercial satellites.

Historically, when planners set up military missions, they might have looked solely to purpose-built satellite communications systems. What we’re trying to help them understand is how commercial satellites are already there and capable of supporting the global architecture for satellite communications. Instead of having the military constellations over here and the commercial constellations over there – and never the twain shall meet – we should treat it as an integrated picture. Commanders at various levels should have options to use both purpose-built and commercial SATCOM.

I believe Air Force Space Command is stepping up to lead that integrated enterprise architecture, and probably later this year, we’ll see a more integrated view of how the government envisions using the best of breed [satellite services] across both purpose-built government systems and commercial systems.

GSR: What will the benefit be to the government if they have this combined pool of military and commercial satellite resources?

Allan Ballenger: For decades, the government drove innovation and investment in space, and commercial and industry was always behind. But within the past decade, that calculus has flipped. Now, commercial players are leading spending and innovation, coming up with new ways of launching and operating satellites in orbit and shrinking the size of satellites.

If the government wants to take advantage of that innovation, it’s in its best interest to leverage industry as a partner so they can take advantage of these new capabilities.

Utilizing commercial satellites also allows the government to more quickly stand up new capability. In classic government programs, the process is fairly lethargic – with a lengthy requirements process followed by a lengthy acquisition process, followed by a lengthy fielding process. It can take years – even a decade – between the inception of an idea and the fielding of an idea.

In today’s environment, the way commercial development is going, it can be a few months to a year or two to field a new idea. The ability to take advantage of commercial innovation quickly is a key advantage for the government. Having that responsive support, government missions – especially critical military missions – can depend on highly available, highly reliable communications. That can be a combination of purpose-built government satellites and commercial satellites. It doesn’t have to be limited to one or the other.

Lastly, there’s cost. As there is a standardization of satellites across the industry, the government will benefit from lower costs in the commercial SATCOM industries.

The post The turning tide of government and commercial satellite industry relations – a Q&A with Allan Ballenger appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Across the board, we’re continuing to see that militaries are in the process of reevaluating and changing how they conduct “business as usual” when it comes to space. Much of that has to do with the fact that space – itself – has changed as a domain.

Space is no longer a benign domain thanks to the reemergence on near-peer adversaries capable of challenging and denying space resources and capabilities in theater. Simultaneously, the space and satellite domain have been revolutionized by the introduction of new commercial players and massive innovation from industry partners. This innovation has come in the form of a new generation of satellites that are being launched and coming on-line in new orbits, the emergence of commercial space launch and even the advancement of on-orbit refueling and servicing.

Together, these trends have led to global militaries – including the United States military – needing to rethink how they gain access to space capabilities, how they acquire space resources and even how they fundamentally architect and build their space infrastructure. This has led to some drastic decisions and changes across governments, as well as some head scratching. All of which was on display at Global MilSatCom.

Let’s take a look at the news coming out of the show, and talk about the impact it’ll have on the industry:

Ground segment getting more attention in military space programs, U.S. leaders say
Historically, government customers have met their satellite requirements in a piecemeal fashion – leasing bandwidth on the spot market to fill gaps in coverage and availability, using a mix of MilSatCom and ComSatCom resources and purchasing ground terminals for specific requirements.

Unfortunately, this piecemeal approach has led to interoperability issues and challenges with the military’s ground infrastructure.

As this article discusses, there were multiple discussions about ground infrastructure at Global MilSatCom about the interoperability challenges and problems with aging ground terminals facing today’s military. One of the proposed solutions was a more holistic approach to satellite acquisition – taking both the space and ground segment into consideration when evaluating and implementing new satellite resources and infrastructure.

However, industry could have another solution in the form of satellite managed services. In this instance, the industry partner is hired as a service provider – effectively on the hook for all of the hardware and services needed to deliver a capability to the end customer. This means that everything from the ground terminal to the bandwidth needed would be included in the managed service. It’s a system that has become increasingly popular in the satellite industry and that could begin to make its way more into the military and government space.

That being said, it’s clear that ground terminals are and will continue to be a challenge and area of focus for global militaries, and the approach to acquiring ground terminals will most likely change. But that’s not the only change in acquisition that was a topic at this week’s show.

Air Force Space Command prepares to take over procurement of satellite communications
This is a pretty big one. The Air Force Space Command is poised and ready to take on a big responsibility that was originally owned by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) – the acquisition of commercial satellite services for the entire Department of Defense (DoD).

The impetus for this change has a lot to do with concerns about the speed of acquisitions and if operator’s needs are being met. The feeling is that this change in acquisition authority will help make necessary ComSatCom services more readily available to the military at the speed of war.

Another change that could be precipitated by this interesting shift in acquisition authority is a move away from Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracting – which bought satellite service based on its price – making it very much like a commodity. With Air Force Space Command at the helm, there is an expected shift towards more innovative acquisition models and a movement to award contracts by more criteria than just cost.

And while this change is certainly a positive step for the government, it wasn’t the only change that was floated to the acquisition process during Global MilSatCom…

Air Force satellite communications buyers would like to see commercial vendors team up into a consortium.
While the above shift is on the government side, there was also a proposed change to the industry side of the acquisition equation.

Due to concerns about vendor lock-in and terminal interoperability, militaries have been reticent to embrace the “satellite as a managed service” model that we discussed above. In an attempt to make it more palatable to the government, some speakers at Global MilSatCom came up with a somewhat interesting proposal – team up.

Tom Becht, the interim director of the military satellite communications directorate at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, called for industry leaders to team up in a consortium that could offer satellite services across companies and constellations to the military as a unit.

We’re not sure how open satellite companies would be towards that kind of tag team, but it certainly is a new and innovative approach to satellite acquisitions…

The post News out of Global MilSatCom shows shifts in military satellite strategies appeared first on SES Space and Defense.