The United States Department of Defense (DoD) relies on satellite communications (SATCOM) for myriad operational needs worldwide. With a massive range of connected technologies, DoD officials have long aspired to create an “Enterprise SATCOM” capability that would enable seamless interoperability among its many networks. To date, that goal remains unrealized, leaving a vast and complex patchwork of hardware, software, communication standards and burdensome manual processes to manage it all.
The DoD’s vision is ambitious but achievable. Successful network interoperability is well-proven through the ubiquity of the internet, the diverse mechanisms for connecting to it and the user’s freedom to decide on what device to use for their internet connection. Resilient availability is also proven; for example, even if an isolated incident like a damaged undersea cable affects a particular region, the global internet does not shut down. Traffic can almost always be quickly rerouted to a functioning connection.
The military wants its SATCOM to be comparable — fluid, fast and seamlessly interoperable. Its envisioned Enterprise SATCOM would be a virtualized, software-defined network that automatically reroutes communications between military and commercial satellites, and even those of allied nations, in the event any particular satellite system is jammed by an adversary. Given that commercial satellites now outnumber those operated by the military, with many more still to be launched, the DoD can and should be able to leverage that diverse ecosystem to achieve its goal.
Adopting commercial SATCOM will require some significant changes to both how the military manages its networked operations and how commercial providers ensure the right capabilities to meet the DoD’s needs while still serving other customers. Flexibility on both sides is key.
A leading consideration is user terminals. The DoD will need to refine its current approach of defining a terminal which typically requires a single waveform, and therefore a singular satellite network, as this has yet to be proven as a formula for success. It generally leads to more cost, longer deployment timelines and less interoperability. Instead, the Department will need to adopt a common set of standards that retain end users’ freedom of choice to select the terminal devices that best meet their mission needs. For instance, a Navy ship versus an Army comms-on-the-move land vehicle versus an Air National Guard forward operating base will require different antenna form factors and bandwidth requirements that can serve from a few users to as many as thousands. Terminal systems that accommodate multiple modem cards and waveforms will support long-term deployments while also freeing the DoD from vendor lock.
This is particularly important since the DoD regularly utilizes legacy equipment and mission applications alongside newer terminals. Whatever new SATCOM services they may adopt must enable backward and forward compatibility and support new advanced terminal technology. Flexibility in terminal configuration will enable all components to better time the amount of on-orbit capacity purchased to end users’ fielding decisions and actions.
For their part, DoD users will need to select a multi-orbit, multi-beam (MOMB) terminal that allows access to multiple networks and avoids stove-piping to a single data transport. For example, a MOMB terminal might access non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) and geostationary orbit (GEO) satellite systems, and must be capable of connecting with multiple satellite beams―assuring connection to an approaching satellite in orbit before disconnecting from its current connection. This is important for resiliency as well as protection against adversary actions.
Along with allowing for choice in terminals, successful adoption of commercial SATCOM will require use of application programming interfaces (APIs) to enable flexible connections between commercial providers and the DoD’s command and control structure. The DoD will need to host vendor interfaces on its network to be interoperable with each. Specific APIs will preconfigure vendor-specific communication formats, enabling the DoD to preserve enterprise management controls and maintain its internal structure. At the same time, providers can deliver connectivity through a communications format that meets DoD needs while supporting their overall business.
This interoperability requires adherence to standards. Consider that international travelers can use their same mobile device to connect to local cellular networks because carriers long ago adopted 3rd Generation Partnership Project standards for mobile networks. Satellites can follow this model by adhering to the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) 3.0 Layer 2 Carrier Ethernet standard, already used by telecommunications providers of terrestrial networks.
Procurement reform also needs consideration. Traditional DoD SATCOM acquisition leverages Operations and Maintenance funding for services that are fundamentally strategic infrastructure, precluding DoD from securing long-term, high-assurance SATCOM capacity. This creates a fragmented model in which end users transactionally buy piecemeal services that do not scale effectively in times of crisis.
The terrestrial telecom model of Indefeasible Rights of Use overcame this issue through a structure that allows “owning” fiber capacity without actually owning the fiber circuit. The Defense Information Systems Agency already leverages this model, using procurement dollars to acquire dark fiber capacity for U.S. bases. This approach — with Congressional approval — could be applied to securing long-term COMSATCOM capacity.
Of course, stringent cybersecurity in new satellites is table stakes. The DoD needs SATCOM that presents the lowest security risk. Integrating leading cyber standards like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and ISO 27001 from initial development is critical. For more rigorous and proven security measures, providers may also align to standards such as those set by the U.S. Space Force’s Infrastructure Asset Pre-Approval program, which are assessed and certified by third party auditors authorized by the Space Force Security Controls Assessor.
Clearly there is much to consider for both the DoD and commercial providers who aspire to support the Enterprise SATCOM vision. The proliferation of next generation satellites enables defense leaders to “buy what you can and build only what you must,” but an informed, thoughtful and open-minded strategy and procurement reform is needed to turn vision into reality.
Charles “Chuck” Cynamon is President of Telesat Government Solutions where he is responsible for defining the commercial, operational and strategic initiatives and delivering the latest-generation of commercial Low Earth Orbit satellite capabilities to the U.S. military, intelligence and civil sectors. Cynamon brings deep knowledge, expertise and leadership acumen from over 24 years of service in the U.S. Air Force and a subsequent decade working with leading space and satellite enterprises.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.
