That is one of the overarching conclusions of the DoD’s just-completed Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for wideband satellite communications, whose findings and recommendations are expected to shape the U.S. military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) architecture in the years ahead. The long-awaited study, completed by government and industry teams over an 18-month period, was delivered to the secretary of defense near the end of June.

Although the details of the AoA have yet to be released, DoD officials offered a glimpse of its broad outlines June 27 and 28 at the MilSatCom USA conference organized by SMi Group of London.

“Hybrid rules,” said Operations Research Analyst with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Norman Yarbrough, during a presentation on the AoA June 27. “We found in the analysis … that there are needs for purpose-built [satellites] and there are opportunities to expand our use of commercial [satellites].”

Since being ordered by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016, the AoA has loomed large over the long running debate over the future of the wideband component of the U.S. MILSATCOM architecture. At issue has been the right mix of Air Force and commercial satellites to meet the DoD’s ever-expanding appetite for connectivity.

Currently a combination of Air Force Wideband Global Satcom (WGS) and commercial satellites serve as the backbone of the DoD’s satellite communications fleet. Brig. Gen. Tim Lawson, deputy commanding general for operations at the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Systems Center, said some 70 percent of all MILSATCOM is carried via the wideband network.

Commercial satellite operators have long argued for a larger share of the wideband pie, and some expressed heartburn with the recent decision by Congress to fund two additional WGS satellites, increasing the size of the overall Air Force fleet from 10 to 12, ahead of the release of the AoA.

Yarbrough, whose presentation focused primarily on the AoA process, said the additional WGS satellites, the first of which is slated to launch in 2022, shifted the focus of the analysis slightly. But the funding decision, driven by congressional concerns about future gaps in the MILSATCOM architecture, did not change the overall picture or the opportunities ahead for DoD to leverage the commercial sector, he said.

A major factor in the AoA, as with other debates in the military space sector, is a new threat environment in which the space domain has become, in a refrain commonly repeated by DoD officials, increasingly congested, competitive and contested. Communications satellites in particular, face any number of threats ranging from jamming – both incidental and deliberate – and cyber attacks to direct kinetic attacks.

Deanna Ryals, chief of international MILSATCOM at Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, which is responsible for procuring military space capabilities including the WGS satellites, said the set of MILSATCOM users that do not require some degree of jamming protection is much smaller today than just five or 10 years ago. “The major growth area that we see is the protected tactical community,” she said. “Many, many, many, many users out there have to have higher levels of protection.”

Meeting that need for increased security requires a mix of military and commercially owned satellites, Ryals said.

Communications via commercial satellites will become more secure with the advent of the Protected Tactical Waveform (PTW), developed by the Air Force and now undergoing field demonstrations, Ryals said. The PTW is compatible with WGS as well as commercial satellites.

Yarbrough raised the possibility that if satellite operators field the full range of protection capabilities required by the DoD now and in the future, the military could rely almost entirely on commercial systems for its wideband needs. “But we’re not sure that’s consistent with the commercial business case,” he cautioned.

Another significant takeaway from the AoA exercise, Yarbrough said, is the degree to which the existing base of user terminals affected the various options explored and how they fared. “It’s about the terminals,” he said, noting that there are some 17,000 terminals deployed by the military today.

Typically these terminals are configured to operate with one satellite system or another, and modifying or replacing them to take advantage of emerging capabilities in the space segment is a costly and time consuming exercise. Indeed, this limitation of the existing terminal base was a major theme at the conference.

Brian Teeple, acting DoD Chief Information Officer for Command, Control, Communications and Computers, said he would like to see industry come up with a terminal able to switch seamlessly between satellite systems and frequencies with minimal to no modifications. “One terminal that I could use across multiple satellite providers in a roaming-type manner,” he said.

This capability is analogous to modern cellphones, which automatically switch to whatever network is available at a given location, Teeples and others said.

“When the iPhone came out in 2007 it had five radios on it,” said Maj. Gen. Garrett Yee, Acting Deputy Chief Information Officer, G6, in the Army. “That was 11 years ago. We ought to be able to provide something to our warfighters that in a handheld device has more than a single option.”

“Industry is working toward a solution,” said Allan Ballenger, Corporate Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of SES Space and Defense, a subsidiary of satellite operator SES that sells services to the DoD and other government customers. “SES Space and Defense is moving from being simply a bandwidth provider to a managed solutions provider, a model that requires a holistic approach that includes terminals.”

Stay tuned for more coverage on the SMI MilSatCom Conference in the coming weeks on The Government Satellite Report.

The post AoA validates expanding commercial role in MILSATCOM architecture appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The future space environment will need to be more resilient and capable of responding to an evolving set of threats, challenges and U.S. Government requirements. Industry experts, political and military leaders as well as pundits have been saying this for years – and with good reason. The ability to sustain operations, especially in the face of capable adversaries, is critically important to our national security.  The commercial satellite communications industry has been, and will be, an important partner in that effort.

As we review our third year of The Government Satellite Report, these themes resonate through some of our top stories.

Bold steps
2017 ushered in another wave of innovative and paradigm-challenging efforts.  With commercial capabilities quickly outpacing dated programs of record, the government began to take steps towards laying plans for a more secure and resilient satellite communications infrastructure.  U.S. Strategic Command’s General Hyten and U.S. Air Force Space Command’s General Raymond established and evolved a Space Enterprise Vision that includes COMSATCOM as a key component of U.S. national security in space.

A key component of this vision is the  Wideband Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to satisfy the military’s future wideband communications requirements. The AoA is leveraging the intent of the Space Enterprise Vision to determine how to develop an integrated satellite architecture that combines both military satellites and COMSATCOM services. This architecture will undoubtedly deliver advanced applications by making next-generation Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) High Throughput Satellite (HTS) commercial technologies readily available for government and military operations.

Along with the AoA effort, leaders in Congress and the Pentagon debated the potential benefits of a separate branch of the military dedicated to space. Congress concluded 2017 by providing sweeping new guidance and authorities to the Department of Defense regarding the oversight of the wider space enterprise and more specifically, the procurement of commercial satellite communications.  Implementing those authorities will be another exciting activity  we’ll track closely in 2018.

2017 ushered in another evolution in how and what type of commercial satellite services the U.S. Government will pursue. 2017 also saw the rise of other government trends that I believe will continue and grow in 2018, and beyond.

High Throughput and Low Latency Applications
MEO and GEO HTS satellites played an increasingly essential role for the U.S. Government in 2017. SES Space and Defense delivered nearly 5 Gigabits per second of managed MEO services supporting over 13 sites globally to government customers ranging from the Department of Defense (DoD) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We see an ever-increasing demand from the U.S. Government for expanded high throughput, low latency capabilities and the mission applications enabled by those services.

Continued Use of Hosted Payloads
Last year we also saw the continued, successful use of hosted payloads by the federal government. In 2017, SES satellites were chosen to host a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) payload for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Global-Scale Observations of the Limb and Disk (GOLD) payload for NASA. The continued success of these hosted payload programs has provided validation for hosted payloads as an economical and efficient alternative to launching an entire dedicated satellite for the same mission. I believe that we will see more innovation in how the U.S. Government pursues hosted payload opportunities on commercial satellites in 2018 and beyond.

CS3 and Beyond
As of October 2017, the COMSATCOM industry will be able to expand its services through the General Services Administration (GSA) Complex Commercial SATCOM Solutions (CS3) contract award.  Awardees, including SES Space and Defense will be able to provide capabilities through this indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle with a $2.5 Billion ceiling. CS3 will allow federal agencies to bid large, complex, custom satellite solutions for the next ten years exclusively among its 22 industry teams. We expect a lot more COMSATCOM opportunities to be released under CS3 than its predecessor, CS2 – including services that will provide high throughput and low latency to the government end-user.

2017 was an exciting year in SATCOM and it set the stage for a significant evolution in how the federal government and the United States military address their satellite communications requirements. The COMSATCOM industry,and SES Space and Defense in particular ,is excited by what lies ahead in space.  We are prepared and committed to helping the government overcome the challenges it faces, to include providing a more resilient, disaggregated and distributed satellite communications architecture.

The Government Satellite Report remains committed to bringing you the latest satellite trends, breaking news and insightful interviews with government and satellite industry leaders in 2018.  But first, here is a look at some of the articles that our readers found most compelling in 2017. Thank you for being a loyal reader.

To learn more about the satellite trends and issues that dominated headlines in 2017, download the Government Satellite Year in Review by clicking HERE.

The post Setting the stage for a revolution in SATCOM – 2017 in review appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

During the first part of our discussion, we defined and explained CNSSP-12 and discussed how it has evolved and changed as it’s been reevaluated and refreshed over time to keep up with shifting threats. We also looked at how the policy has helped commercial satellite communications providers service the military more securely.

In part two of our discussion, Andrew shares his predictions for what the next iteration of CNSSP-12 will look like, discusses how it will impact the industry, and provides insights into how CNSSP-12 can shape space policy across the military in the very near future, thanks to the ongoing Wideband Satellite Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) being conducted by the Air Force.

Here is what Andrew had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): The updated CNSSP-12 hasn’t been released yet, but can you tell us what changes you’re anticipating for commercial providers when the new, updated policy is revealed?

Andrew D’Uva: When the policy is released, I anticipate that we’ll see an increased focus from the government on verifying the security posture of these commercial solutions.

In the past, industry designed their systems and then – if they were going to play in the government and military market – they would go back and try to implement U.S. Government security requirements at a later stage. Now, they’re working to incorporate these things into these satellite systems at design time and maintain them throughout the system lifecycle. This shows industry is starting to think about security up front.

I anticipate that the new CNSSP-12 guidance will take advantage of that new attitude and incorporate much more information sharing between industry and government. This will ensure that the government is aware and informed about the steps that industry is taking to make their solutions reliable, robust, and secure.

This will lead government to require more security assurance systems in place for commercial satellite solutions, and more auditing. What I expect to see is much more focus on formalizing processes, taking a quality management approach, documenting things and making security part of the daily activities of managing these systems.

GSR: Will the CNSSP-12 refresh have any impact on the developing Wideband AoA and the USG’s ability to better harmonize commercial and military space architectures?

Andrew D’Uva: This is really an important question due to what is currently happening across the military in regard to satellite architectures. Up until now – in terms of SATCOM – the U.S. military has first relied on purpose-built satellites that they own and operate and looked to commercial meet excess demand. I’m talking about AEHF, WGS, and MUOS, which are used for different missions, including strategic nuclear command and control, tactical protected SATCOM, wideband SATCOM, and narrow-band, tactical SATCOM. All of those have performed well, and have their benefits and drawbacks.

Commercial wideband systems have been, until the recent introduction of managed services, largely transponded capacity where the Government’s focus was ensuring positive control of the commercial satellite bus, not necessarily the underlying communications services.

Looking forward, the government is trying to figure out if it makes sense to continue to use these siloes of purpose-built constellations and use commercial to fill in the rest, or, to what extent should commercial infrastructure solutions be part of meeting the baseline demand and integrated into an enduring architecture that spans both government and commercial capabilities.

Despite there being a two-decade track record of success in using commercial solutions securely, for the government to be really comfortable in advocating for an integrated architecture – which is supported by industry – they need to be confident in the level of security and mission assurance.

The security requirements like those in CNSSP-12, NIST cybersecurity framework and other cybersecurity guidance and policies will ensure that the SATCOM industry can continue to participate in an environment that is increasingly non-benign. The environment that we’re in and are moving into in the future is one in which our adversaries are seeking to do us harm through cyber effects. In this environment, the government needs to know that the security posture of wideband COMSATCOM systems is on par with purpose-built MILSATCOM systems.

I believe that many commercial systems are on par, but that’s not the perception of some military decision makers. I’ve had senior level defense decision makers tell me that MILSATCOM is held to a higher cybersecurity standard than COMSATCOM. However, COMSATCOM satellites are held to the same requirements contractually by DOD. A lot of government personnel don’t realize that – they think commercial is lesser than and not as secure as MILSATCOM. They don’t realize that COMSATCOM typically has secured locations, cleared personnel and high security standards. I’ve seen cases where once that’s understood, military leaders are willing to consider commercial solutions, including their unique benefits.

Since CNSSP-12 applies to both military and commercial satellites it should help military decision makers to adopt an enduring role in an integrated wideband SATCOM enterprise architecture for qualified COMSATCOM solutions.

Now, there are certain military SATCOM missions – such as nuclear command and control that are designed to work in a nuclear war environment – that requires a higher level of mission assurance than will ever be offered by commercial providers. Those special missions will always require costly, custom-built government satellites. But for most missions, COMSATCOM can fill that need if operators have implemented these security requirements. If some commercial offerors haven’t implemented them, those solutions may be fine for other commercial or government uses, but not for national security missions.

GSR: What does the COMSATCOM industry need from the military to make this a reality? How can the military incentivize the industry to incorporate CNSSP-12 requirements into their systems and service offerings?

Andrew D’Uva: The government needs to match its acquisition policy and practice to the policies that are levied. The government needs to move away from simply looking at the lowest priced solution as being the best solution. They first need to look at effectiveness and cyber security before looking at price. If there are participants in the acquisition process that don’t meet these security requirements, they need to be ruled out as not technically acceptable. Then the military can focus on competition among the multiple compliant suppliers.

That has not yet happened. There are many reasons, but they primarily have to do with the way that COMSATCOM typically has been funded. COMSATCOM is typically funded from Overseas Contingency Operations money, which is short-term money that is available to a Combatant Command and it’s not in the baseline DoD budget. Military purpose-built SATCOM programs, which are programs of record, don’t charge fees to the user when they’re utilized. This makes it seem that – from a user perspective – MILSATCOM is free while COMSATCOM costs money. The truth is that everything costs the taxpayer money.

So, it’s a function of how these budgeting processes work, and we need to fix that.

If you look at the FY18 NDAA, there is a section in there – Section 1601 – that assigns the Commander of Air Force Space Command as the DoD acquisition authority for COMSATCOM leases, in consultation with the DoD CIO. That is a major change and will be a very important one to watch in 2018.

For the very first time – when that change is done – the organization that builds the wideband SATCOM programs of record will be the same as the organization that has authority to lease COMSATCOM capacity.

In the past, DISA handled commercial leases and Space Command handled programs of record. The two sides never needed to make a budget or resource decision about how to best spend taxpayer dollars between those two acquisition approaches for SATCOM capabilities. But, a year from now, there will be one acquisition authority.

This will be the first time the DoD will be organizationally structured to make those decisions and spend the taxpayer’s money more effectively while still getting the resources and capabilities it needs. That also means that 2018 will be the first time that the government will be able to drive industry into participating in an integrated architecture. It’s a great opportunity for all of us to ensure the nation has the SATCOM capabilities it needs.

If you missed part one of our two-part conversation with Andrew D’Uva, click HERE to read it in its entirety.

The post Analyzing the Impact of the CNSSP-12 Refresh with Andrew D’Uva of Providence Access Company appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The other major announcement from the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. was that the Army was canceling the WIN-T Increment 2 program and exploring new network options. This could have both positive and negative implications for the Army as it prepared for more advanced adversaries and works to ensure mission assurance for communications systems in the future. The negative implications could arise from the Army’s apparent attempt to reduce dependency on satellite communications – which were the backbone of WIN-T.

But before we talk about the ramifications, let’s discuss the reasoning for a proposed reduction in WIN-T network usage.

More advanced adversaries means more competition in space

It has been a recurring theme across the entire Department of Defense (DoD) for the past few years – space is no longer the ultimate high ground for the United States military. In the past, the U.S. had space capabilities and satellites as a unique differentiator – providing a distinct tactical advantage and edge over our adversaries. That was certainly the case in the country’s recent wars, where our adversaries had no space capabilities available for their use.

But that’s changed significantly over the course of the last decade. Our largest, most advanced adversaries have proven that they can negate our satellite communications and effectively eliminate our tactical advantage from space. They’ve done this with jamming. They’ve done it with kinetic attacks on satellites as well as through intercepting communications.

The Army – and the rest of the DoD – wants mission assurance and readiness. They want to be guaranteed that their networks are ready should threats arise from these larger, more advanced adversaries – and the steps forward that they’ve taken in space causes concern for the DoD.

This concern is compounded by the trends in IT and technology in warfighting. Every new platform being built, evaluated and implemented across the DoD is network-enabled in some way. This was exemplified by General David Goldfein, the Air Force Chief of Staff, at the recent Air Force Association (AFA) Air, Space and Cyber Conference 2017, who repeatedly asked, “Does it connect? Good. Does it share? Even better,” when discussing the next generation of Air Force innovations.

With every platform being network enabled and with an increasing reliance on IT at the tip of the spear, it’s understandable that the Army wants to take steps to ensure that the capabilities that IT affords are always available to the warfighter. Our increasingly sophisticated adversaries put the resiliency of the satellite networks in question.

More advanced satellites means it doesn’t matter

In my last post, I discussed how the DoD’s acquisition processes don’t always move fast enough to ensure that they’re getting the latest technologies, because technology advances so quickly. Something similar is true in satellites.

Satellite technologies have advanced significantly in the past few years – especially among the commercial satellite providers that are constantly refreshing their constellations by building, launching, and bringing new satellites on-line. Today’s SATCOM providers are launching and operating a new generation of High Throughput Satellites (HTS) that not only deliver higher amounts of bandwidth and higher throughputs, but are also less susceptible to jamming. They’re also operating new constellations in different orbits – including LEO and MEO orbits – that can have a huge impact on resiliency.

Instead of looking for alternatives for SATCOM, the Army should be analyzing new satellite technologies and solutions available via commercial SATCOM providers that can help deliver a higher level of resiliency and redundancy in space, and better ensure that IT-fueled capabilities are always available to the warfighter.

Take HTS as an example. The smaller spot beams utilized by HTS satellites make it significantly harder for them to be jammed, since satellite jamming needs to originate within the beam. Couple that with new, protected waveforms being developed and implemented by SATCOM providers, and HTS satellites can deliver far more resiliency in space than previous generations of satellites.

Increased resiliency is possible via the use of MEO and LEO satellite constellations. By disaggregating satellite signals across multiple satellites and orbits, the Army can gain resiliency. In this situation, the adversary simply doesn’t know which satellite to attack, and wouldn’t be able to negate satellite-enabled capabilities even if they did attack one of the correct satellites, since there would be redundancy baked in.

The increased resiliency of these next generation satellite solutions – in tandem with the incredible bandwidth they can deliver to practically anywhere on the planet – makes it clear that satellite should still be the future for the Army. Especially when you consider the alternatives.

Analyzing the alternatives

If satellite isn’t the answer for the Army, what is?

One of the alternatives – tropospheric scatter (TROPO) – involves reflecting – or bouncing – signals off of the troposphere. TROPO is already in use and has been proven as a viable alternative in satellite denied environments. But can it be an alternative to satellite altogether? The answer is undoubtedly, “no.”

TROPO has restrictions and issues that you simply don’t experience with satellite networks. First, it needs a complicated setup process for each new geographic area in which it will be located – eliminating the potential to do comms on the move. In contrast, satellite networks simply require the antenna being pointed in the optimal direction. Also, TROPO can be drastically impacted by weather and other factors. Combined, these restrictions make it an attractive solution as a backup for satellite networks, but in no way an alternative for them.

Another concept that’s been floated by the military has been the use of UAS platforms to deliver signals. This creates the same issues with resiliency – if not more issues – since a UAS flies low enough to be much more easily targeted by adversaries. Although they’re relatively cost effective and could be deployed in large numbers, they could be easily negated by kinetic attacks from adversaries, making them a less reliable and resilient option.

It’s both judicious and sensible that the Army wants to embrace new solutions that would provide mission assurance for their advanced warfighting technologies and IT. But the alternatives to satellite that they could be exploring are all lacking in some way, and could effectively be less resilient and effective for the Army when they need them most. The advanced satellite solutions available today – and coming online in the very near future – are the best alternative for the Army as it reevaluates and reconsiders the future of its networks.

For additional information on HTS and MEO satellites and their uses for federal government and military operations, download the following resources:

• White Paper: Satellite Evolution Sparks a Service Revolution
• High Throughput Satellites for U.S. Government Applications
• White Paper On O3b “Fiber Like” Satellite Communications for U.S. Government Applications

The post New satellite solutions should be the Army’s answer to advanced adversaries appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

This year’s conference, in particular, was very eye opening, and brought with it some headline-grabbing comments regarding how the Army acquires new products, services and solutions, and the future direction of Army networks. Some of these changes could be very positive for the Army and America’s warfighters, while others could lead to problems down the line.

First, let’s discuss the changes in acquisition.

A new path forward for more rapid evaluation and acquisition
The entire U.S. military – including the Army – has historically struggled with acquisition. The Department of Defense (DoD) and branches of the military have found it difficult to evolve a system that acquired physical items – such as firearms, tanks, boats and planes – to one that acquires services and technologies.

When acquiring physical items – such as planes and tanks – the design, acquisition and implementation process can afford to move at a slower pace. Many of these platforms will be in circulation and service for decades. But services and technologies create challenges – especially when you consider the near-glacier speed of the federal acquisition process. This is something that I witnessed first hand as a Signal Officer in the Army.

Service providers struggle when doing business with the DoD and federal government because they need employees to meet the demands of government customers. Staff up too quickly and have the contract process move slowly, and they’re carrying employees and salaries for a long time waiting for the contract to be awarded. Wait until the award to staff up, and they’re left scrambling to hire the human resources necessary to meet contract demands.

Technology acquisition is similarly impacted by the slow acquisition process simply because technology moves too quickly. Often, by the time a new technology is evaluated, acquired, and implemented, it’s no longer a new technology and the latest and greatest has already entered the marketplace and become the new industry standard.

Satellite acquisition has faced similar challenges. We recently published a Q&A with Maj Gen Jay Santee, USAF (Ret.), who now serves as the Director for Resilient, Affordable Space at the MITRE Corporation, all about the challenges the DoD faces when acquiring satellite services, and the steps he thinks are necessary to overcome them. (You can find that article HERE.)

So, how is the Army planning on changing this? With a new pilot initiative that creates eight interdisciplinary teams responsible for identifying requirements and evaluating new solutions. The concept is expected to help warfighters better inform the materiel planning and acquisition process, while also expediting it to bring new solutions to bear on the battlefield in a more effective and efficient manner.

Although the program is just a pilot with little authority over acquisition practices early on, it is an innovative and interesting step that’s receiving initial praise from senior leaders across government. According to Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, “The Army’s decision to restructure its acquisition process and streamline its modernization program is an example of the kind of bold steps that will be necessary to fix a broken system.”

But that wasn’t the only change the Army committed to at this year’s event. The other has to do with their networks, and – if executed incorrectly – it could leave the Army less ready to face the threat of advanced adversaries in the future.

In our next article on the Government Satellite Report, I’ll take a closer look at the impending changes to army networks, and discuss why it’s essential that satellite plays a role in defense networks of the future.

To listen to an interesting podcast on the state of satellite acquisition in the DoD, featuring Jeff Rowlison, the Vice President of Government Affairs at SES Space and Defense, click HERE.

The post A new pilot program may present a challenge for Army acquisition appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

One of the panel discussions at this year’s conference was titled, “Breaking Barriers in Space Operations,” and featured two military leaders with a deep understanding for the new challenges facing the Air Force in the space domain – Brig Gen Chance Saltzman, and Maj Gen Jay Santee, USAF (Ret.), who now serves as the Director for Resilient, Affordable Space at the MITRE Corporation.

During this engrossing panel discussion – which delved into a wide number of topics ranging from the increasingly contested space domain to the evolution of commercial launch – Maj Gen (Ret.) Santee teased that a new and more innovative approach to COMSATCOM acquisition had to be explored in the Air Force and the larger Department of Defense (DoD), calling for a combined and integrated SATCOM infrastructure that combined both MILSATCOM and COMSATCOM resources.

We were intrigued by what Maj Gen Santee was saying, so we sat down with him for a more in-depth discussion about this new approach to COMSATCOM acquisition. Here is what he had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): During your panel discussion (at the AFA Conference), you said that there’s an evolution or movement away from space operators and towards space warfighters. What is triggering this evolution? What differentiates a “space operator” from a “space warfighter?”

Maj Gen Santee: A Space Operator employs a space system to deliver effects to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines engaged in other domains. By contrast, a Space Warfighter employs a space weapon system to deliver effects to warfighters while fighting against a thinking adversary.

Since all national security space systems are subject to attack, they will all need to be designed to enable space warfighters to fight through attacks while collecting images, broadcasting PNT signals, connecting satellite communication users, or assessing missile launches.

To address emerging threats to our space systems, we must fundamentally change the way space operations are performed. The mission, function, and task performed by the warfighter and the weapon system must change in the face of these threats.  For today’s space operators, we have a new set of missions, functions, and tasks to perform to control and exploit the space domain and that entails defeating an adversary who is attempting to deny, degrade, or disrupt friendly space capabilities.

For developers, this means we have a new “engineering” problem to solve.  We must add design features to enable warfighting on our space, ground, spectrum and user equipment segments.  It’s similar to the difference between flying a business jet and a fighter aircraft.  When we design these aircraft, we had different “engineering” problems to solve and the result is two very different flying machines employed in two very different ways.

GSR: We often hear that space is a contested environment now and that we need to protect space resources. What steps can the military take to ensure resiliency in space capabilities?

Maj Gen Santee: Air Force Space Command and the National Reconnaissance Office developed a new warfighting concept.  This includes a new concept of operations, new resilient architectures, and new tactics, techniques, and procedures that are all optimized to delivering effects from a contested space environment. It’s both an operational and force development problem, and it requires a top-down, system-of-systems or enterprise approach.

The Department of Defense has identified the elements of space mission assurance and resilience in space. Designing resilient space architectures entails applying these six elements correctly to outpace and defeat the projected threat.  The elements are:

1. Protection
2. Disaggregation
3. Proliferation
4. Diversification
5. Distribution
6. Deception

In each of the space capability areas, these elements must be correctly applied by AFSPC and the NRO to create enterprise-wide resilience.

GSR: What role can commercial satellite constellations – including LEO and MEO constellations – play in delivering this resiliency?

Maj Gen Santee: Commercial space service providers play a key role in today’s architectures and they will play an equally, if not more valuable role in the future. They will serve new roles in enhancing resilience and must therefore be fully integrated into architectures from the beginning. This contrasts with the way we leverage commercial space services today—as supplementing national security space shortfalls.

I also predict a future where the government will seek closer cooperation and partnership with commercial entities.  The government will want “full service” partners who may fly national security payload on their satellites, fly and operate government satellites, distribute government information across ground networks, and provide the government with “full enterprise services.”

In return, the government should consider bringing commercial operators into military planning and operations to include sharing information about space and cyber threats, provide indemnities against wartime loss, as well as traditional monetary compensation for their services.  This type of partnering is only possible if the government and industry plan and architect for it well ahead of actual need.

GSR: During the panel, you said that there needs to be a shift in how the military conducts COMSATCOM acquisition. What is broken in the current acquisition model and how would you fix it?

Maj Gen Santee: When I stated we need to rethink buying services, I was referring to the thinking outlined above.  The threat requires the government and industry to re-optimize our thinking and relationships to defeat the common threat.

This novel approach to acquiring services requires the government to rethink its relationship with commercial service providers.  It requires both the government and industry to approach the relationship in a less transactional, short-term, case-by-case basis.  Instead, both parties need to approach the relationship from a long-term, enterprise perspective where both parties make long-term plans, decisions, and actions in their mutual interest.

The DoD will likely want to do more than lease bandwidth or buy images. In the future, they may want access to SATCOM providers’ networks, satellites, bandwidth, satellite SWaP (Size, Weight and Power), and more.  This long-term, enterprise approach can allow the government to build resilience into its architectures in that it can bring proliferation, diversification, and distribution to our space enterprise.

Commercial providers want a stable investor who can offset risks to their operations and satellites with assurances of a steady cash flow and indemnification.  This can be a win-win for both parties and will require us to rethink our relationship considering the threat.

GSR: Do you anticipate that the new (Air Force) wideband AoA will take positive steps towards COMSATCOM acquisition change? How do you anticipate the wideband AoA influencing space and satellite policy and procedure moving forward?

Maj Gen Santee: I’m not familiar with the Terms of Reference to the wideband AoA.  I will say past AoAs have shown us that trying to make architecture decisions from a single “mission area” perspective versus an enterprise perspective does not yield satisfactory results.

Any AoA going forward must take an enterprise perspective in addressing the threat. For this to occur, the AoA terms of reference should ask for solutions that optimize resilience in addition to schedule, mission area performance, and cost.  If an AoA only optimizes cost, schedule, and mission area performance, I am skeptical we’ll get a satisfactory outcome.

In the case of wideband SATCOM, if the AoA terms of reference ask for the team to take an enterprise approach and optimize all four parameters to outpace the threat, I’m sure we’ll get results that point to the solutions I’ve discussed above.

Maj Gen Santee is not the first person to speak with the Government Satellite Report about reevaluating the COMSATCOM acquisition process. To listen to an interesting podcast on this topic with Jeff Rowlison, the Vice President of Government Affairs at SES Space and Defense, click HERE.

The post A new path forward for COMSATCOM acquisition – a Q&A with Maj Gen Jay Santee (USAF, Ret.) appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

The Pentagon’s commercial SATCOM purchasing agent, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), continues to buy commercial capacity as needed on the spot market, a practice industry officials say makes it difficult for them to plan and invest in military-oriented capabilities.

Pete Hoene, President and Chief Executive Officer of SES Space and Defense, argues that DISA should embrace the mindset that appears to be taking hold at US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), traditionally a buyer of military space hardware. Through its Pathfinder series of initiatives, SMC is experimenting with new ways to procure commercial SATCOM capacity and partner with industry.

The dialogue has taken on a higher urgency of late as the Air Force pursues an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for replacing the current military-owned Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) communications system. WGS is the backbone of the US military SATCOM fleet, but many industry and government officials say the time has come to hand that mission to the private sector.

One of the latest discussion venues was the 2017 MilSatCom USA conference in Arlington, Va., sponsored by SMi Group. Among the featured speakers was US Army Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, director of architecture, operations, networks and space in the Office of the Army Chief Information Officer.

I had the opportunity to discuss these acquisition issues with Mr. Hoene following that conference. Here is what he had to say:

Warren Ferster: What were some of your biggest takeaways from the MilSatCom USA conference?

Mr. Hoene: One of the biggest takeaways for me was Gen. Gallagher’s comments, and his plea to industry to help provide more innovative solutions.  He said they uncovered a treasure trove of information while conducting operations overseas and they had no way of getting that information back to their exploitation centers in a timely manner.  So they reached out to industry, who came through with a high-throughput, low-latency capability that was able to backhaul vast amounts of information.  That ability to rapidly backhaul critical information (via our O3b MEO solution) was a breakthrough for deployed forces.  As a result of the increased capability, they were able to quickly process information and get it back to the theater of operations within hours, not weeks or months.

Warren Ferster: He clearly was talking about SES’s medium Earth orbit (MEO) O3b constellation.  Why is low-latency so important?

Mr. Hoene: A system that provides a round-trip signal turnaround time of about 200 milliseconds enables users to leverage cloud-based applications. At geostationary orbit (GEO), where you might have 500 milliseconds of round-trip time, it becomes very difficult to use cloud-based applications. What happens in a low-latency scenario is that this acknowledgement or non-acknowledgment of a transaction, or task, happens almost at fiber-like speeds. Therefore, with the O3b MEO solution, you don’t get timeouts or applications that drop out; the users stay connected. When you get to two times that amount of latency, you are susceptible to timeouts and potential problems. Don’t get me wrong: 90 percent of our customer base is GEO and we need to maintain the support we provide from GEO. But there’s a growing need that was unfilled until our proven MEO capabilities came along.

Warren Ferster: How has that growing need translated into contracts?

Mr. Hoene: We have been very fortunate to have several MEO contracts with the US government. Two of the contracts support COCOM efforts in theater and another supports NOAA’s National Weather Service Office out of American Samoa.   Yet another effort supports a new pilot program for a key US government customer overseas.

Warren Ferster: Were there any more important conference takeaways for you?

Mr. Hoene: I was there for the panel on the Wideband AoA. The problem I had with that panel is that they kept dancing around the AoA criteria and how they would accurately incorporate and represent commercial capabilities.  To me, it’s absolutely crystal clear.  Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, is probably the most informed warfighter on active duty on the topic.  I like what he said recently: “You also have to ask yourself on the wideband side, with the wideband commercial side, why are we even buying wideband satellites? Why don’t we have the commercial side that’s already built them in three years go ahead and buy them for us, and we’ll just lease it back or come up with some other arrangement in order to do that.” 

Warren Ferster: By industry, are you referring to satellite operators as opposed to manufacturers?

Mr. Hoene: I’m actually referring to both.  Why not reach out to owner-operators and manufacturers? I wouldn’t exclude the manufacturers because I think WGS prime contractor Boeing has shown that they can do it. But the owner-operators in my mind are needed because they offer the ability to manage constellations of satellites very efficiently.   You have to ask the question, “do you really want to continue to manage a constellation of WGS satellites with a large military force, or do you want to turn it over to industry?”  At our satellite operations center we have eight to ten people that manage 53 satellites in GEO and 12 satellites in MEO.  Others in our industry do something very similar for their fleet, so you don’t really need to have a standing army to manage these.

Warren Ferster: DISA’s reluctance to enter into long-term satellite leases has long been a concern for owner-operators. DISA appears content with the status quo because it is getting attractive prices on the spot market. Your thoughts?

Mr. Hoene: I’ve had this discussion with leaders at DISA and cautioned them not to try to commoditize what many of us in the SATCOM industry consider vital infrastructure. DISA doesn’t buy SATCOM the way they buy fiber. They buy fiber in long-term contracts and they treat it as vital infrastructure. Buying SATCOM on the spot market and treating it as a commodity, not vital infrastructure, makes the owner-operators like us question if we should invest in future capabilities that the Department of Defense and US government might need in the long run, such as added security features. As a former Air Force senior leader I find that to be a very risky proposition.  Buying short-term spot market capacity may support peacetime needs but provides no guarantee that the additional capacity the DoD needs in a crisis will be available.  If we had a stronger mission partner – industry partner relationship, we could look at more innovative contracting strategies that could make reserve or pre-emptible capacity available for key regions of the world and be ready to support US Government users in a moment’s notice.  We encourage DISA to increase its interaction with industry and to reverse the spot market and commoditization trend.

Additionally, I was talking with a senior Defense Department leader who said he would like to see commercial SATCOM treated just like military SATCOM so that if a WGS satellite gets jammed they can turn to a commercial satellite in the same region and with similar features to get the resiliency needed to operate through that jamming scenario.  This type of support doesn’t happen through spot-market leases.

Warren Ferster: DISA says long-term leases are problematic because the money it uses to buy commercial satellite services is budgeted on an annual basis.

Mr. Hoene: The vast majority of their SATCOM contracts are a base year plus four option years. It’s based on existing capacity and on operations and maintenance dollars or overseas contingency operations dollars, so there really isn’t a partnership or long-term horizon. I would suggest that they change the way they procure commercial SATCOM along the lines of the Pathfinder initiatives. We’re the proud partner with US Africa Command and Space and Missile Center (SMC) on Pathfinder 1 and we’re working with the Air Force on the remainder of the Pathfinder initiatives.

We would like DISA to try to do things more like SMC is doing rather than try to be a transaction processor for spot market commercial SATCOM. That would really enable me to carry the message to our parent company and to our board and say, “we should invest in specific satellite capabilities, beam structures, power considerations and security features to meet US government requirements.”  This type of interaction will go a long way to provide industry with investment incentives.

The beauty and the innovation that comes from the Pathfinder efforts is that it’s funded by procurement dollars, so you’ve got the stability of the budget backing the investment. As Congress appropriates those funds, industry knows there’s a commitment there to fund those efforts over a several year period.

We’re thankful for the Air Force’s groundbreaking work with the Pathfinder initiatives.  These efforts are making a difference and reflect well on the leadership of former SMC commander Lt Gen Sam Greaves and current SMC commander Lt Gen John Thompson.

Finally, we’re also thankful for the leadership and vision Congress has shown by encouraging the DoD to find more innovative ways to procure commercial SATCOM for a number of years.   They have been consistent in trying to get the DoD to take some risks and find new ways to satisfy their SATCOM requirements.

SES Space and Defense is clearly excited about our differentiated MEO and GEO capabilities of our fleet and are poised and ready to usher in the breakthroughs we discussed.  We’re convinced commercial satellites are a critical component of a fully integrated, resilient national security space architecture and look forward to bringing advanced capabilities to our government partners in the near future.

The post Breakthroughs in Commercial Satellite Communications (SATCOM) appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Practically all of the panelists at the Defense One event seemed to agree that the end result of this AoA – and the Pathfinder and pilot programs feeding it – will be one of the biggest changes yet; a significantly increased reliance on industry partners in MILSATCOM to help deliver mission-critical communications and capabilities, and to effectively increase mission assurance.

But that’s not the only change that could be on the horizon to the relationship between the federal government and the COMSATCOM industry. A new Request for Proposal (RFP) is expected in the very near future could usher in giant steps towards erasing the line between the military’s satellite constellations and those of the Nation’s industry partners.

Game-changing RFP on the Horizon

The Air Force is preparing to release an contract that will turn over the operations and management of MILSATCOM constellations. Although the timing for this RFP is still TBD, according to Robert Tarleton, Jr, the Director of the MILSATCOM Systems Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, “We’re working forward on that now. I expect to put an RFP out in the very near future.”

Originally only intended to include the military’s WGS satellite constellation, there are already tweaks to the RFP happening that would involve industry partners taking control of an even larger part of the military’s satellite infrastructure. As Mr. Tarleton said, “It actually got tweaked a little bit…it [isn’t] just WGS, but also the DSCS Constellation. We’re going to get both of those run…we’ll be bringing in contractors so that they can relieve the Blue Suiters…”

And the line could get blurred even further in the near future, according to Mr. Tarleton, there will be an, “off ramp or an option to eventually move to a contractor facility.” This means that the WGS and DSCS satellite constellations would not only be conducted by industry partners, but be done in a commercial operations center.

This approach is a far cry from the way the military has traditionally approached their space and satellite infrastructure. Traditionally, the military has relied on purpose built satellite constellations that they commission, launch and manage all themselves. This was well illustrated by Dr. David Hardy, the Associate Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force (Space), when he was once quoted saying, “We in the DoD space community like to keep control over our assets.”

So what changed?

Moving towards COMSATCOM Managed Services

There are multiple reasons why the military could be moving in this direction. According to Todd Gossett, the Senior Director of Hosted Payloads at SES Space and Defense, they most likely include cost and mission focus:

“Cost savings is certainly a part of it. The military is always looking for ways to operate more effectively and efficiently for the American taxpayer. COMSATCOM providers can manage these constellations for a fraction of the cost since there are efficiencies of scale. They’re already operating satellite constellations in operation centers – this would simply add to the number of satellites they’re operating. I would also assume that there’s a challenge with mission focus. Having to operate and manage the WGS fleet keeps service men and women from higher-value work.”

Mr. Winston Beauchamp, the Director of the Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor Staff and Deputy Under Secretary (Space) of the U.S. Air Force, claims that there could be more to it than that. According to him, “It’s going to be cost savings, it’s going to be freeing up of the Blue Suiters. But it’s also going to deliver the interoperability…that will be one of the key drivers to the enterprise ground system.”

It’s clear that outsourcing the management and operations of the WGS and DSCS satellite constellations could deliver some significant benefits to the military. But it’s also a change that could prove difficult to a military that has traditionally avoided risk and sought to keep as much control as possible in all phases of the mission and organization.

When asked if he felt is the military could effectively make this transition towards industry partners managing and operating its space infrastructure, Todd Gossett said, “I certainly think it’s possible – and it’s certainly in the military’s best interest if they’re going to make the management and operations of the constellations as efficient as possible.” He continued, “There are large, financially-stable commercial space operators with experience managing large constellations, that have integrated new satellites into their command and control system and are capable of executing effective Information Assurance operations. Finding the right partner with the right experience should take much of the risk out of this transition.”

Although the timing of the RFP remains unknown, the movement towards commercially-operated DSCS and WGS satellite constellations could be inevitable. If it does come to pass, it would certainly mark a new direction for MILSATCOM, and even further blurring of the lines between the military’s space infrastructure and the commercial satellite industry.

Watch the video of the Defense One briefing below:

The post The evolving role of industry partners in MILSATCOM appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Ultimately, the largest trend that was discussed at the event was the need for the government and military’s space infrastructure to change in the face of a drastically more congested and contested domain. This topic  was well-illustrated by Dr. Brian Weeden, a panelist and Technical Advisor at the Secure World Foundation, when he said:

“There’s…a growing use of space for military and national security purposes by the US and other countries. And all of these things together generate challenges – physical congestion, greater frequency congestion, and also the potential for space to be part of future conflicts. That’s a huge set of challenges – and also opportunities – that the military is trying to deal with.”

Space is becoming increasingly incorporated in conflict planning and military exercises. CNN recently highlighted this new battleground in their special “War in Space: The Next Battlefield” which premiered last month. The domain is being relied on more heavily for the delivery of actionable intelligence and mission-critical capabilities and communications in theater. It’s also becoming a capability that the military is looking to better share and integrate with both international partners and the intelligence community.

These necessary changes were extoled by Mr. Winston Beauchamp, the Director of the Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor Staff and Deputy Under Secretary (Space) of the U.S. Air Force, when he said:

“Just look at all of the changes that we’ve made just in the last year. We’ve changed the way we exercise. In July at the Red Flag exercise, the Air Expeditionary Commander – someone that has always been an air operator – was Col. Deanna Burke, the Commander of the 50th Space Wing. We changed the way the relationship between air and space operates. We changed how we collaborate with our international partners…We’ve changed the way we present space forces to the combatant commanders by building a space mission force that understands what it takes to operate through a contested environment. We changed our Op centers and are well on the road to modernizing our battle management command and control capability. And we’ve changed the way we integrate with our intelligence community partners – much closer collaboration than ever – because – when you’re in a contested environment – you have to understand what your partners are doing in response to a threat…”

But these changes aren’t the only result of the shifting space domain.

Looking ahead and analyzing the best path forward

A more congested and contested domain has led the military to look forward to the future of their space and satellite infrastructure for 2030 and beyond. As we discussed in our previous post, this is beginning with an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for military wideband satellite, which will analyze all possible ways in which the military can build a next-generation space and satellite network that will deliver the mission assurance that the military needs in space today, and into the future.

What is the current status of the military wideband AoA? It’s in its infancy.

The AoA is, unfortunately, very complex and intricate, with many disparate organizations and parties involved in its development. Instead of being done entirely with input from the DoD and Air Force, this AoA is being drafted with input from international partners and private industry – including the COMSATCOM providers whose networks will undoubtedly become more relied on to carry military communications and capabilities during conflicts.

This more complex AoA has taken significantly more time to coordinate and start than many outside of the government had anticipated. As of yet, the completion date remains “TBD.”

According to Robert Tarleton, Jr, the Director of the MILSATCOM Systems Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, “It’ll be done when we’ve answered all of the questions that we have to address. [AoA’s] typically take around 18 months or so. But this one is going to be complex because we’ve got commercial partners in the planning and conduct of the AoA, as well as international partners that are participating as well.”

However, Mr. Tarleton did insinuate that COMSATCOM could be playing a larger role in military SATCOM needs in the future when he said, “…purpose built satellite, commercial systems – that’s hard to figure out right now. There’s going to be some mix, there’s no doubt about it.”

But the AoA isn’t being shaped with just input from international and industry partners, alone. There are other intelligence and information sources that are expected to help define and shape the AoA – and subsequently the nation’s military satellite infrastructure – moving forward.

Path forward defined by Pathfinders and Pilot Programs

In addition to gathering intelligence and information for the creation of the AoA from international partners and experts in private industry, the military is also conducting a series of Pathfinder and Pilot Programs. These programs are designed to create insights and information into the feasibility of disparate purchasing and operating models for SATCOM services.

<Click HERE to access a two-part podcast series focused on the Pathfinder Program and the benefits it has generated for the Air Force.>

The first COMSATCOM Pathfinder, which involved the Air Force acquiring a transponder on an in-orbit satellite over Africa, was widely considered a success by decision makers in the DoD. However, the next Pathfinder program, Pathfinder Two, has met some internal resistance and has been delayed and subsequently altered from its original intent and design – to purchase a transponder prior to launch and then have the ability to trade capacity on that transponder for capacity on other satellites that are providing coverage in geographic areas of need.

According to Mr. Tarleton, “The intent was to look at the business and acquisition processes. So, what has actually changed is our approach to how we’re going to do Pathfinder Two. We hoped to initially have – at contract award – access to the whole constellation of whichever company we had bought from, equal to the bandwidth we had bought. With the funding and some of the other regulations we had run into, we just weren’t able to do that. We’re actually going to not have that capability available to us until after the satellite itself is launched.”

But, despite these setbacks, the military is optimistic that some Pathfinder data – as well as learning from other pilot programs – can be incorporated into the wideband AoA. However, they’ll have to move fast to complete Pathfinder Two, and its successor – Pathfinder Three. Unfortunately, similar setbacks and challenges in how the military is using funds could make it difficult for these programs to be completed in time to influence the AoA.

According to Mr. Tarleton, “With Pathfinder Three, we are also trying to get the funds recolored. That’s going to have to happen very quickly. And, an action was taken and I’m not sure if that’s going to be able to be completed on time…”

Whether findings from the Pathfinder programs are incorporated or not, the wideband AoA marks a clear and deliberate attempt by the military to evolve their space and satellite infrastructure to better meet the challenges of an increasingly congested and contested domain.

By incorporating private industry in both the planning and construction of the nation’s next-generation satellite network, the military is working hard to ensure that this network not only can deliver communications and capabilities effectively and efficiently to the warfighter, but also has the mission assurance necessary to ensure that these capabilities are never compromised.

In our next article on the GovSat Report, we’ll look at another program that was mentioned at the morning briefing, which could fundamentally change the way the military approaches the command, control and management of their military satellite constellation.

*Featured image courtesy of Defense One

The post Analyzing satellite alternatives for increasing mission assurance appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

I had the opportunity to attend the event and listen to the all-star panel discuss the challenges, changes and opportunities facing the military’s space operations and satellite infrastructure. The panel included:

• Winston Beauchamp – Director, Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor Staff and Deputy Under Secretary (Space), U.S. Air Force
• Chirag Parikh – Director of Source Strategies, NGA
• Robert Tarleton, Jr. – Director, MILSATCOM Systems Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California
• Brian Weeden – Technical Advisor, Secure World Foundation

Despite representing separate entities , all four of the panelists had a similar perspective on space – The U.S. needs to adopt new technology and expedite acquisition processes quickly to ensure continued mission assurance and superiority. There are multiple trends and changes in the domain that are forcing the military’s hand.

Paramount among the changes and challenges facing our nation in space is the fact that space is no longer host to a party of two. There are an ever-increasing number of players in space. This challenge was highlighted by Dr. Weeden when he said:

“We’ve been doing things in space since the 1950s. And it’s only been in the last decade or so that those that work in the field have started to see a pretty drastic amount of change, and that’s being driven by several trends. One of those is that space is becoming more international. Early on, only two countries were operating in space, now there are more than 60 countries that have at least one satellite, and more of them joining the club every year.”

But it’s not just other governments that are starting to launch and maintain satellite constellations. As Dr. Weeden explained, there is an increasing field of commercial satellite providers that are launching spacecraft for a wide range of capabilities and use cases.

According to Dr. Weeden, “Space started as a government endeavor, but that’s changing very rapidly. We’re on the cusp of seeing a revolution or renaissance in commercial space that will see it start doing all sorts of interesting things that government has done in the past…and also a whole bunch of new things we haven’t seen before.”

This congestion in space is not a new topic of discussion. In fact, we’ve covered the issues and challenges that can arise from the expanding ecosystem of satellites in space at great length and in great detail in the past on the GovSat Report. Ultimately, increased congestion greatly increases the chances of collisions between spacecraft.  The increased investment of foreign nations – and adversaries in particular – into their satellite constellations only serves to erode the advantage that space used to provide to the United States military.

What’s more, the U.S. military’s reliance on satellite and the advantages that satellites deliver in theater are no longer exclusive or unknown. Our adversaries know that SATCOM is mission critical to the military, and will look for any way to take SATCOM and other satellite capabilities away from our military during conflicts. This sentiment was shared by Mr. Parikh when he said, “…the environment has changed. War is extending to space. Some are now considering [space] part of a conventional conflict.“

If war is extending to space, then U.S. satellite infrastructure and the capabilities they deliver need to be protected to ensure they’re available to the warfighter during conflicts.

Building a new, more resilient architecture

These new challenges and changes in space come at an interesting and pivotal time in our nation’s space infrastructure.  The Department of Defense (DoD) is now looking forward to the next space architecture for 2030 and beyond.

Regardless of what decisions the military makes regarding its future satellite infrastructure, a focus on resiliency is guaranteed.  One of the ways that the military is exploring to help increase resiliency and enable other benefits is to look to those outside of the U.S. government and military for support – including commercial industry and international allies. This sentiment was reflected by Mr. Parikh, who said:

“We are in a huge transition phase right now. We are already – in the government – talking about the architecture after next. And so as we try to figure out what’s happening in 2030, we have to first figure out what’s happening in the commercial climate, what’s happening in the foreign climate, understand what’s happening in the security climate, and then – based upon that – apply our capabilities towards what we do best, which is solve the hard problems with the resources that we have and then leverage commercial and foreign capabilities to the maximum extent practical.”

The future vision for the military satellite infrastructure is expected to be established in an upcoming Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) that will be conducted by the DoD. This AoA is expected to begin shortly, and will function to identify the path forward for military satellite communications.

Despite the fact that the process for completing the AoA has yet to begin, almost all experts – including the panelists at the event – agree that COMSATCOM will play a vital role in the future of the government satellite infrastructure when it’s completed and released.  One of those reasons involves private industry’s ability to bring new and innovative satellite technologies to market faster than the government could ever dream of. The other relates directly to one of the largest challenges facing us in space – resiliency.

More layers means more mission assurance

The existing constellations of purpose-built military satellites, WGS, is capable and effective for delivering communications and capabilities to warfighters in theater. They’re also easy targets for adversaries.

During a conflict, adversaries may look to eliminate U.S. SATCOM and other capabilities delivered via satellite, and there are multiple ways they can accomplish that – including jamming and kinetic attacks. If these capabilities are being delivered exclusively through the WGS satellite constellation, targeting the correct satellite and compromising them is exceptionally simple. According to Mr. Beauchamp, “Right now, if somebody wanted to deny SATCOM services they pretty much know what satellite they’re being delivered from.”

The military can change this by distributing their SATCOM capabilities and delivering them multiple layers or constellations of satellites. By distributing capabilities across multiple satellites and constellations, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify which satellites are carrying mission-critical communications and capabilities and makes it more difficult to attack them.

This point was validated by Mr. Beauchamp who said, “…If we can evolve from an architecture where we deliver capability from a single layer of identical nodes in space to one where we maintain the exquisite national systems that we have and that we have enjoyed the services of for so long, and augment them with systems that are delivered with commercial capability, international capability and possibly something that is responsive in nature, then it would be very difficult for any of those threats to hold our capability at risk because they wouldn’t know where the capability is being delivered from.”

Aside from distribution of SATCOM signals and capabilities, commercial providers can also help increase mission assurance through their advanced HTS technology. Today, COMSATCOM providers are building and launching a new generation of High Throughput Satellites that utilize high powered spot beams to deliver higher throughputs and increased bandwidth. These high powered spot beams can also be useful in helping protect satellite signals from jamming.

According to Mr. Beauchamp, “…on the COMSATCOM side, (we’re) going to take advantage of the industrial trend towards smaller spot beams of higher power so that jammers would have to be much more numerous and much more close to the action than they would have before to deny a signal.”

With benefits that align directly with the military’s need to increase mission assurance and protect satellite capabilities, it’s no surprise that COMSATCOM is will be a significant mission partner in the future. The challenge for the DoD will be to accurately incorporate the capabilities and benefits of COMSATCOM in their developing AoA.

In our next article on the GovSat Report, we’ll look at the status of the AoA and some of the individual pilot and Pathfinder programs that the military is utilizing to help those conducting the AoA make more informed decisions.

*Featured image courtesy of Defense One

The post Changing space domain calls for a new approach to MILSATCOM appeared first on SES Space and Defense.